Teal UK decision – order of claims – not insurer’s call

more+
less-
more+
less-
Explore:  Indemnity Agreements UK

In Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd and Aspen Insurance UK [2013] UKSC 57, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Commercial Court that an insured and its captive insurer were not entitled to choose the order in which claims were paid under a tower of insurance contracts in order to maximise the insured’s recovery under its professional indemnity programme. The general rule is that the liability of insurers under a liability policy arises when the insured’s loss is ascertained by agreement, judgment or award. The policy therefore meets each ascertained loss when and in the order in which it occurs.

The Supreme Court’s decision reiterates that very clear and unambiguous wording is required if the liability of insurers is to be triggered other than in the chronological order in which the underlying claims are ascertained.  To read our London office’s update on this important case, click here. To read our previous analysis of these issues click here.

Topics:  Indemnity Agreements, UK

Published In: General Business Updates, Insurance Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© DLA Piper | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »