Insurance & reinsurance overview
We are a leading chambers for complex insurance claims and coverage issues and recognised as such in both Chambers UK and Legal 500. Our insurance barristers are regularly instructed to advise on policy disputes, defend claims and pursue subrogated recoveries in jurisdictions throughout the world.
Chambers “handles a range of disputes involving insurers and insurance cover, with expertise across construction, property damage, professional liability, clinical negligence, personal injury, public liability, consumer, employer’s liability, and health and safety disputes” (Legal 500).
Our work in this area covers a broad range of issues. We advise regularly on coverage and avoidance issues, dealing with issues such as misrepresentation and non-disclosure including breach of duty of fair presentation of risk, fraud, policy interpretation, causation issues, notification and aggregation. We are experienced in dealing with the inter-relationship of multiple layers of insurance and co-insurance.
We are familiar with all forms of insurance policy, including standard forms and bespoke wording and covering all the various types of liability insurance (D&O, employers, public, product and professional indemnity), insurance of property, contractors all risks insurance, life insurance and reinsurance.
Given our related expertise in construction and engineering, commercial dispute resolution, professional liability, property, costs and litigation funding and international work, we are perfectly placed to advise and represent clients in insurance disputes across the board.
“Gatehouse has a market-leading team for construction-related insurance disputes” and a “strength in depth in the construction insurance field” (The Legal 500, 2024).
We also regularly advise solicitors, funders and parties on coverage issues arising out of the use of BTE and ATE policies in relation to adverse costs in litigation and increasingly own costs and disbursements.
Members of chambers’ insurance team also have experience in considering ATE policies both in their own right and in the context of security for costs applications, including in the context of major group litigation such as the Pan-NOx proceedings.
John de Waal KC has published Risk & Negligence in Property Transactions and Paul Reed KC has written two leading insurance texts with contributions from a number of Gatehouse Chambers members: Construction All Risks Insurance and Construction Professional Indemnity Insurance (both Sweet & Maxwell). We also contribute to Insurance Broking Practice and the Law (Informa) and other specialist texts.
Recent work involving members of Gatehouse Chambers
The Construction Team is regularly engaged in dealing with CAR disputes on the domestic and international stage. For example, the construction team has recently been involved in CAR disputes relating to the development of a Greek power plant, a PFI schools project in the North of England, the deflection of a seawall in the Tasman Sea and sand ingress claims in respect of a wind turbine power generation project in Saudi Arabia, as well as numerous DSU claims.
Members of the professional liability team regularly advise in policy disputes in relation to notification, aggregation, declination of cover due to fraud and exclusions, for example in relation solicitors’ PII policies in large scale property investment schemes and in relation to sub-contractors’ professional indemnity cover in relation to the Northern Line extension project.
- Cases
Stonegate Pub Company Ltd v MS Amlin Corporate Member, Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SA and Zurich Insurance
Paul Reed KC, David Pliener KC and Louis Zvesper
The Lawyer top 20 cases of 2022. Acting for Stonegate in the seminal Covid-19 business interruption claim for around £1bn, brought by the owner of over 700 pubs, nightclubs and bars. Following the Supreme Court test case, it was treated as the lead case to resolve a number of subsequent issues critical to the market.
FM Conway Limited (Appellant) v The Rugby Football Union, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC and Clark Smith Partnership Limited (Respondents)
Paul Reed KC, Michael Wheater KC, Catherine Piercy KC, Simon Kerry and Philip Marriott
Paul Reed KC and Simon Kerry acted for the RFU whilst Michael Wheater KC, Catherine Piercy KC and Philip Marriott acted for CSP in a claim concerning the scope of the co-insurance defence. They succeeded at first instance and in the Court of Appeal in proving that FMC was not co-insured for the damage which was the subject of the RFU’s claim and CSP’s Part 20 claim. The case is now the leading authority on the scope of co-insurance.
WD v WB
Nigel Jones KC and Catherine Piercy KC
Catherine Piercy KC advised and acted for a third party in a claim against insurers following a successful adjudication against the insured. Insurers denied cover on the basis of non-disclosure and misrepresentation. Catherine Piercy KC and Nigel Jones KC succeeded at trial and recovered the full indemnity under the policy. As well as the issues relating to the declinature, the case concerned the extent to which an insurer was bound by the adjudicator’s decision.
University of Exeter v Allianz Insurance
High Court and Court of Appeal case acting for insured on whether damage caused by the controlled detonation of a WW2 bomb came within the “occasioned by war” exclusion.
Shepherd Construction v Kingspan and others
Acting for insurers on a £50 plus cladding dispute, with coverage issues arising on the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010.
M v QBE Insurance & others
Acting for a catastrophically injured man pursuing a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. The Claimant was put in a headlock and partially strangled by a doorman resulting in a devastating stroke due to the dissection of the internal carotid artery. He now lacks mental capacity and will need lifelong care. The PL insurers for the doorman’s employer (now in liquidation) declined cover due to the purported failure to satisfy certain notification conditions. Following the entry of judgment against the doorman’s employer following a trial, the claim against the insurers is currently proceeding to trial on the 2010 Act claim.
OCL Facades v Absolute Insurance Brokers
Acting for a specialist cladding contractor in a claim against insurance brokers regarding cladding issues following the Grenfell fire.
Corrigan & Chapman Construction Limited v Lloyds Syndicate
Acting for the construction company in a claim against professional indemnity insurers following a fire at Highbury Leisure Centre in London.
SRM Limited v Zurich Insurance & Ors
Acting for the main contractor, SRM, in a multi-million pound construction all risks insurance claim in respect of physical damage, corrosion debonding and discolouration of 1,460 pod bathroom floors, at new development in Manchester city centre.
MDDT Nominees v RSA
David Pliener KC and Michael Levenstein
Claim for wrongful declinature under property damage policy following collapse of façade to listed Georgian terraced property in Marylebone. Issues in dispute include the mechanics of façade collapse and the recoverability of emergency structural repairs carried out negligently by the local council pursuant to a Dangerous Structure Notice. Claim value c. £5 million.
Durham County Council v (1) MGH Card, (2) IMB, (3) Tolent Construction
Acting for a large construction company in TCC litigation relating to the fire safety of Milburngate, a 450,000 sq. ft development on the banks of the Wear in Durham.
P&O Ferries v RSA
Claim for wrongful declinature under property damage policy following sinking of vessel off Scottish coast during overlapping windstorms. Issues in dispute include whether the proximate cause of sinking was adverse sea conditions or corrosion to the hull, and whether the insurer became subsequently estopped from denying cover following costly attempts to re-float the vessel. Claim value c. £2 million.
Hussain v Alder Whittingham
Claim for professional negligence against firm of architects concerning the redevelopment and extension of a row of neighbouring businesses in Bristol seeking to extend upwards into a mixed-use development. Original claim value (pre-successful strike out) c. £1 million.
Wessex Water v ETM Contractors
Defending professional negligence claim brought against major civil engineering contractor arising from allegations of c. £650,000 damage caused to a sewer pipe which required a c. 60-metre section to be permanently diverted.
Fountain Foods Limited v UK Insurance Limited
Acting for the policyholder in a claim arising out of the product recall of a well-known condiment following its contamination with pieces of plastic. The main issue is whether the there was “damage” to third-party property, in circumstances where the policyholder’s product was introduced during the production line.
Valero v WB Civil & JN Piling
David Pliener KC and Simon Kerry
Acting in a claim arising from piling works carried out by WB Civil in the course of repairs to an underground oil pipeline
M v I
Advising insurers on the application of a workmanship exclusion, impact of proximate cause analysis and whether the Wayne Tank approach had been disapplied.
P v I
Advising the insured on extensive Covid-19 business interruption quantification.
O v S
Advising re-insurers on the application of an underinsurance clause on Indonesian factory damage.
T v R
Advising insurers on multi-million pound claim following an extensive leak from a failed pipe. Issues included coinsurance under a CAR policy and the scope of professional duties covered under a PL policy.
P v A
Advising insurers on meaning and application of inherent vice and gradual deterioration clauses.
A v C
Acting for large contractor insured against its 3 PI insurers in relation to the scope of its cover for alleged cladding and fire safety liabilities, totalling over £100m.
S v H
Advising insured on the validity of a block notification for circa 100 projects in relation to cladding and fire safety claims.
Re – scope of notification
Advising insurers as to their obligation to indemnify a third party in relation to multimillion pound claims brought under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. The claim raises complex issues regarding the construction of notifications both before and after an insured’s insolvency.
Re – potential compromise of subrogation rights
Advising insurers on whether their subrogation rights have been prejudiced by a settlement agreement entered into post-PC and the effect this may have on the claim for an indemnity made by an insured. The case raises issues not only concerning the scope of settlement, but also the scope of co-insurance available to a negligent contractor.
Re – a new home warranty policy
Advised insurers as to the scope of indemnity under a new home warranty policy as well as issues concerning aggregation of both claims and excesses leading to successful settlement.
Re – water ingress relating to a construction all risks policy
Advised a large subcontractor in relation to claims under a construction all risks policy, following several incidents of water ingresses. The precise cause of the water ingress is unknown, leading to complex issues concerning the scope of cover, the applicable excess and aggregation.
Re – scope of cover under a professional indemnity policy
Catherine Piercy KC and James Hall
Catherine Piercy KC and James Hall acted for an insured in relation to its claim for an indemnity under a professional indemnity policy. Insurers declined cover on the basis that the insured had breached its duty of fair presentation, leading insurers to only offer a percentage of cover by way of indemnity. Insurers then argued that the insured breached a condition precedent of the policy in an attempt to decline cover altogether. Catherine’s advice and representation led to recovery by the insured of substantially more than had been offered by insurers.
Re – a national café chain
The case concerned various complex causation and quantum arguments on Covid-19 business interruption following on from FCA v Arch.
Re – a luxury apartment development in central London
The case concerned difficult questions of co-insurance arising from water damage and delay and relating to various different categories of insurance.
Re – a pharmaceutical R&D company
The case concerned whether there was cover under a business interruption policy for losses caused by the impact of COVID-19 on Europe wide drug trials and supply chains.
Re – contamination from an artesian well on agricultural land
The case concerned whether an agricultural policy providing various different types of insurance, including Environmental, Public Liability, and Property Damage, responded to diesel contamination.
Re – damage to the rear of a property during the installation of structural steels
This is a claim against the insurer under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 for an indemnity under a contractor’s liability policy where the contractor is being wound up.
Re – an indemnity for damage and business interruption following a fire
This claim concerned whether policies could be voided for material non-disclosure of prior bankruptcy and liquidations.
Care South v Tokio Marine
This is a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 for an indemnity under a professional indemnity insurance policy where the insured has been dissolved. The underlying claim relates to negligent professional services provided by an employer’s agent in relation to the construction of a care home.
Re – negligent construction of roofs and fire stopping at a number of care homes
These are a number of claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers Act) 2010 for indemnities under professional indemnity insurance policies. The underlying claims relate to negligent design of a number of care homes. The claims raise a number of notification issues.
Riko v Aviva
This is a claim under a contractor’s works policy concerning water damage to timber roof cassettes during construction of a number of residential properties, leading to progressive rot and decay. The claim concerns the DE5 wording.
Re – an arbitration concerning cover under a CAR policy for damage to a hydroelectric dam in Peru
The claim concerned the proper interpretation of the LEG 3 wording.
Re – motor insurer’s policy avoidance and fraud
Advised an individual following his motor insurer’s avoidance of his policy for alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations.
Re – motor insurer’s refusal to meet claim
Advised an individual in relation to his motor insurer’s refusal to meet a claim for a stolen prestige vehicle on the basis of alleged non-compliance with the policy terms.
Re – buildings’ insurance coverage
Advised an individual property developer on prospects of successfully claiming against a building insurance policy for defective workmanship during the construction process.
Re – motor insurer’s policy avoidance and fraud
Advised a property insurer on prospects of recovering its outlay following an extensive fire caused by a tenant’s alleged negligence, as well as complementary freezing order relief.
Related expertise
Our insurance & reinsurance barristers
Recognition
News
Articles
Past events
Videos
Practice managers
Peter Foad
Natasha Devlin-Clingham
