Leeds Coverage Symposium

This session will consider whether there really is a duty to defend, as well as whether defence costs are covered if the policyholder isn’t liable to the claimant; the need for insurers’ consent to incurring costs; what constitutes “reasonable” costs; and how costs should be allocated between insured and uninsured claims.

This session looks at a fictional case study involving a fire at a commercial property. The facts are drawn from a few of our cases, and explore coverage issues we commonly see such as breaches of security conditions, non-invalidation clauses and allegations of non-disclosure (previous bankruptcy/insolvency). The session will conclude with a round-up of our top tips for getting claims paid.

This session will cover the following:

• How to ensure that a contractor’s Public Liability policy does include cover for contractual liabilities;
• How to minimise the risk of the FCA Test Case causing contractors a problem where losses involve a mix of design and workmanship;
• How to show your client’s CAR insurer what “cost of improvement” means in LEG3;
• How to show your cladding block notification is valid.

We will consider how entities and insured persons under a D&O policy could find themselves exposed in the years ahead as a result of new and emerging risks. From Covid to Brexit and climate change to silent cyber, insureds and their brokers should be alive to gaps in cover and mitigate those problems from an early stage.

The FCA Test Case of 2020 was one of the most significant pieces of insurance litigation in the English courts for some time, and had an immediate impact on thousands of businesses seeking coverage of losses flowing from government-ordered closures and restrictions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. But in overturning the notorious decision in Orient Express v Generali, the Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching ramifications that extend beyond the coverage of Covid-19 losses. This session examines the principles set down in Orient Express, the reasons why the Supreme Court concluded that it had been wrongly decided, and the future implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for policyholders and insurers.