Our client is the provider of a gaming network in over 100 countries, including Europe, Australia / NZ, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, and India.
They suffered a well publicised intrusion in April 2011, and were shut down globally for a number of weeks as a result. We are instructed by the gaming company in relation to claims for indemnity against both its E&O insurers, and its Property Damage and Business Interruption (“PDBI”) insurers.
The E&O claim relates to the scope of cover available for a multi-million pound (equivalent) class action against the company in Israel.
The PDBI claim relates to the company’s loss of profit caused by the intrusion, and involves novel and commercially significant issues relating to the extent to which interference with electronic data constitutes “property damage” under a PDBI policy.
The claim involves a considerable amount of technical complexity. We are currently in a pre-litigation voluntary disclosure stage, which is expected to continue for several months.
We acted for a building contractor which negligently caused a fire whilst carrying out hot works.
Insurers declined to provide an indemnity and purported to avoid our client’s public liability policy on the basis that our client had breached various warranties.
We successfully argued that, in fact, the warranties were conditions precedent and that the obligation to comply with them was not strict, but had to be considered according to what was reasonable in the circumstances.
A full indemnity was provided to our client.
Our client was retained as main contractor in relation to the design and construction of two ferry berths in Belfast. Following practical completion various design errors were discovered which had been made by our client’s sub-consultants.
Our client was required to carry out remedial works valued in the region of £10m, and sought an indemnity from its professional indemnity insurers: for the primary layer and the excess layer.
A dispute then arose with both insurers in relation to whether the various mistakes made by our client’s sub-consultants should be aggregated together: if so, then the primary insurer’s liability would be limited to £5m, and the excess layer insurer would be responsible for the balance; if not, then the primary insurer would be responsible for a much more significant portion of the loss.
We have been retained to advise our client on coverage. Although other solicitors had previously been instructed in relation to coverage, our positioning within the London insurance market, and our market contacts, maximises the chances of a successful outcome being achieved.
Our client was retained as the main contractor in relation to the design and construction two wind farms in Ireland.
Following the discovery of design defects, a claim was made against our client for c.£10m. Our client notified the claim to its insurer, which confirmed indemnity and assumed conduct of the defence of the claim.
After the collapse of that insurer, and the transfer of its claims handling obligations, an audit uncovered an alleged misrepresentation in our client’s proposal form, and it refused the declinature through arbitration.