Jackson 2.0 – The Next Big Thing

“The next big thing we can do – and my department cares a great deal about costs across the board and disproportionate costs really impede to access to justice – is to try and extend fixed recoverable costs to as many areas of civil litigation as possible.”

Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Justice
16 October 2017

It might be thought that re-patriating judicial authority from the European Court would be top of the Whitehall agenda and so it is interesting to note the evidence, cited above, of the Minisitry of Justice’s most senior civil servant before the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week. It seems clear that the MoJ retains its focus on a series of reforms and initiatives that will change the court process, the way in which users interact with the courts and in which lawyers’ fees are paid.

Continue reading

Commission considers significant European support for Motor Insurance Directive change

As we mentioned in two recent Vnuk blogs the European Commission has picked up the pace in considering the issues that arise both in respect of that judgment but also in respect of the Motor Insurance Directive. Whilst a broader consultation closes in October a narrower Inception Impact Assessment consultation closed this week with 20 substantive responses. There are two Government responses (UK and Ireland) with British, French, German, Irish, Spanish and Maltese insurers responding through member organisations such as the ABI. Additionally the Council of Bureaux, the Secretariat for 47 National Guarantee Funds (the European MIBs) has also responded on behalf of its members. Motorsport responses are also strong with two from the UK and one from Ireland, again responding collectively on behalf of members. All of the above favour the “in traffic” amendment to the Motor Insurance Directive to reflect a narrower compulsory insurance obligation than is implied by the Vnuk judgment itself (save for the French Insurance Federation which takes the view that its compulsory cover already includes Vnuk).

The contrary case in respect of Vnuk is presented by three lawyer lobbying groups: APIL, FOCIS and PEOPIL. The first two are broadly representational of UK legal firms but the latter has a much broader Pan-European (an indeed wider global) membership.

A narrow reading of “for” and “against” is dangerous on a technical issue and responses, even of those arguing for the ‘full Vnuk’ accept that there should be exceptions. The weight of insurer responses and particularly that of the Council or Bureaux should, one would hope, carry significant weight with the Commission. The very clear concerns of motorsport about the existential threat posed by the ‘full Vnuk’ are articulately expressed and broaden to include reference to other European treaties and societal considerations.

There is an ongoing debate about the issue and further work to be done. The wider consultation on MID does not close until 20 October and there will be further opportunity to reinforce the arguments about the scope of MID and Vnuk in those submissions. BLM is hosting a workshop on the subject on 25 September and is happy to welcome interested parties.


 Written by Terry Renouf, consultant at BLM

Insurance Act Anniversary: no news is Market Best Practice

At midnight tonight the insurers’ faithful servant expires: the last commercial insurance policy based on the Marine Insurance Act 1906 will end and on renewal the Insurance Act 2015 will apply. There may be some wrinkles around contracting out and perhaps a multi-year policy could see some limited application of life support to rare atypical policies but Saturday August 12th 2017 marks the first anniversary of commencement of the Insurance Act 2015. From that point the MIA1906 will start to fade until the last claim has been presented, adjusted and paid. Whilst “full” implementation of the Law Commissions’ extensive programme of Insurance Reform will only be in place on May 4th 2018 (the date which marks the first anniversary of the commencement of the “late payment” term) to all intents and purposes the IA2015 is the only show now in town.

Continue reading

Eight principles for cyber security of automated vehicles

The legislation on insurance arrangements for automated driving is expected to re-emerge this the autumn, with the Queen’s Speech in June trailing the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (replacing the now-lapsed Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill).

A further critical element of the regulatory regime associated with this rapidly developing technology is ensuring data security and integrity and that concern is front and centre of eight key principles published by the UK government on 6 August 2017.

Continue reading

October deadline for responding to REFIT review of European motor insurance

The European Commission has just started a review of the legal regime of compulsory motor insurance put in place by the Motor Insurance Directive EC/2009/103 (the MID). The review is the wider REFIT evaluation of all aspects of the MID and is open for responses until 20 October. It therefore runs in parallel with the shorter four week consultation about the inception impact assessment (IIA) for the MID, about which we posted this blog last week.

Continue reading

Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010: a Happy 1st Birthday

Today marks the first anniversary of the commencement of the Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. It is, as we have discussed, a successor to an Act of the same name dated 1930. It modifies and brings up to date the protections available for a claimant bringing an action against an insured but insolvent defendant. Despite the overhaul of the UK’s insurance legislation (CIDRA 2012, Insurance Act 2015 and of course TPRAIA 2010 there has been very little “insurance” case law on the new statutes but in the last few weeks a number of cases considering the new TPRAIA have been reported.

Peel Port v Dornoch was a case arising from a fire, causing damage of more than £1m at Sheerness Docks. In this instance the defendant was not in liquidation but the PL insurer, Dornoch Ltd relied on a “hot working” endorsement and alleged that their insured was in breach of the condition. The insurer had provided details of terms but not the policy. The claimant made an application for pre-action disclosure of the policy. Pointing to the information that the new Act requires to be provided and suggesting that as the substantial claim was likely to trigger an insolvency that it would save costs and the court should exercise its discretion to order disclosure. It was accepted the policy would be a disclosable document in coverage proceedings (between policyholder and insurer) and would form part of the statutory disclosure required by TPRAIA 2010 but the judge noted that policyholder was not insolvent and possibility (or even likelihood) of insolvency of policyholder did not comprise sufficiently exceptional circumstances to exercise discretion and order pre-action disclosure of the insurance policy.

BAE Pension Fund Trustees v Bowers & Kirkland was a case that arose from defects in the design of a concrete slab which was laid by D3, a company which had become insolvent. An application was made to join D3’s insurers as a co-defendant. The policy provided that disagreement about coverage would be subject to French Law and any coverage dispute should be arbitrated. The insurer argued that the  breach of a condition meant that there was no insurance and that TPRAIA 2010 did not apply. In addition the jurisdiction clause meant that an English Court could not hear the case. The court noted that s2 provided a mechanism for determining precisely the sort of dispute that the insurer argued ousted the Court’s ability to determine the dispute. It was not necessary for the claimant to establish that it was entitled to a policy indemnity for it to join the insurer as a party. The legislation allowed the insurer to pursue the coverage arguments but this was the time to argue those issues and they did not form an argument to resist being joined as a defendant.

Redman v Zurich & ESJS1; a “friendly fight” between parties to establish a precedent about the TPRAIA transitional provisions and whether the 1930 or 2010 Act applies. In this instance Mr Redman died from lung cancer on 5 November 2013 some years after he had worked for a company now known as ESJS1. His former employer (now sued by his widow) was the subject of a voluntary liquidation commencing on 30 January 2014 and culminating in dissolution on 30 June 2016. All these dates precede 1 August 2016, the commencement date of the newer TPRAIA. Argument had however been raised that the insured (ESJS1) had not incurred a liability, against which it was insured under the contract of insurance, until after 1/8/16 and that, as a consequence, the 2010 Act applied. If the claimant had succeeded on the point she could have brought an action directly against the insurer – if she so chose. However this point was abandoned (the judge confirming correctly so) as the liability of the employer was incurred when the cause of action is complete: in this case when the claimant (or deceased) suffered damage. The further submission of the claimant was that the 1930 and 2010 Acts can apply in parallel. Albeit that this was, to use the Judge’s word “brave” it, also, was not successful. Mr Justice Turner confirmed that where both “triggers” (the policyholders insolvency and the occurrence of damage) pre-date the 1/8/16 commencement then only the more restrictive 1930 Act applies

In each of these case there are “no surprises” to date and indeed many of the issues and questions above have been considered in the BLM TPRAIA Flowchart. Peel Port did try to push the boundaries but as the Judge noted the availability of insurance cover is a regular feature of litigation and it is for the claimant to take the defendant as he finds him – insurance may well be commercially relevant to the litigation but coverage documents are irrelevant to the issues. Therefore Peel Ports maintains the status quo – policy documents, absent insolvency, are not discoverable in a non-coverage case. BAE Pension Fund and Redman are both determined as we would have expected.

However, it is early days as far as the new law is concerned and there will be other more complex  cases that will be decided on more obscure facts and difficult interpretations of the law: perhaps to be determined before TPRAIA celebrates its second Birthday.


Terry Renouf, partner, BLM Written by Terry Renouf, consultant at BLM and member of the firm’s Time for Change team.

Internet of insecurity: liability risks for business

The emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT – the interconnection of everyday objects via the internet) raises important issues relating to security and hacking.  In particular, the potential for civil claims against manufacturers resulting from a failure to provide any or sufficient security is not known.

Continue reading

Redman v Zurich: Third Party Rights Acts do not run in parallel

Four statutes this decade have significantly changed insurance contract law: the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TPRAI), the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, the Insurance Act 2015 and the Enterprise Act 2016. With this level of statutory reform it is perhaps hardly surprising that Mr Justice Turner decided, in Redman v Zurich on 26 July, against “an interpretation … tantamount to judicial legislation” when consider trigger dates for applying the TRPAI Act 2010 above.

Continue reading

REFIT of European motor insurance: Vnuk one of four measures to be addressed

Having been largely silent for a year about how to tackle the Vnuk problem (i.e. the extended scope of compulsory motor insurance to any normal use, anywhere, of any motor vehicle) the European Commission appears to have picked up the pace significantly in just announcing a new four-week consultation period running from 24 July to 21 August.

Continue reading

Autonomous Vehicles: The Bank of England takes a Prudential View

With Parliament taking a break for the summer we now have to wait until the Autumn for the Bill that will provide the legal underpinning of the changes to UK motor insurance that anticipates the introduction of autonomous vehicles. The notes to the Queen’s Speech in June explain that the main objective of the bill is “to ensure that compensation claims continue to be paid quickly, fairly and easily, in line with longstanding insurance practice.” No doubt the Bill, whenever introduced, is going to be very similar to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill that Alistair discussed when that was introduced in (but did not survive) the last Parliament.

Continue reading