Claims notifications vs crystal ball gazing the Court of Appeal's recent Euro Pools decision

News / / Claims notifications vs crystal ball gazing the Court of Appeal's recent Euro Pools decision

The Court of Appeal held that, consistent with previous authority, an insured must be aware of a circumstance in order to notify the insurer of that circumstance but there is no requirement that heshe be aware of the full causal origins and implications of the circumstance notified The insured may give a can of worms or hornet's nest notification Accordingly the Court of Appeal found in favour of RSA, that the costs of works to mitigate the risk of potential third party claims objectively arose from the circumstances notified in 2007 and as such RSA had already paid the limit of indemnity for that year and no further sums were due to the insured The background to the AppealEuro Pools, now in administration, was a company that specialised in the installation and fitting out of swimming pools Euro Pools agreed with RSA two materially identical professional indemnity policies, one covering 20062007 (the First Policy) and one covering 20072008 (the Second Policy), each with a limit of indemnity of 5mnbsp The policies covered Euro Pools for liabilities to third parties and for the costs of remedial works intended to mitigate the risks of claims by third parties nbspIn a meeting in February 2007, during the period of the First Policy, Euro Pools notified RSA that they were encountering problems with the steel tanks installed at two sites but considered that the installation of inflatable bags might be a solution Euro Pools also notified RSA of problems with their system of moveable booms (in-pool vertical dividing walls, designed to rise and sink so that a pool can be used in different configurations) which was not expected to exceed the retention Several months later in its proposal form for the Second Policy renewal in response to the question regarding any claims circumstances, Euro Pools referred to the tanks on booms issue which they were fixing with inflatable bags Aon (Euro Pools' broker) confirmed to RSA that the total cost of remedial works would likely fall within the applicable excess nbspHowever, in May 2008, Euro Pools reported that the inflatable bag system was failing and they were considering the installation of a new hydraulic system Having exhausted a number of other potential solutions, Euro Pools began to install hydraulic systems for booms from late 2008 RSA made regular interim payments in respect of these works A dispute arose however, regarding to which policy the claim for mitigation works on the system of booms attaches Euro Pools contended that the cost of installing the hydraulic systems for booms should fall under the Second Policy, given that the 2007 notification related only to the failures of some of the steel tanks, whilst the discovery of a fundamental flaw in the air drive system which caused problems with the bags and subsequently the need to have a hydraulic system fitted, was not known until 2008nbsp RSA contended that the claim attached to the First Policy, in respect of which RSA had already paid out the limit of 5m At first instance, the judge found in favour of Euro Pools and held that the 2007 notification was limited to a problem affecting some but not all of the steel tanks installed in Euro Pools' booms there was no adequate causal connection between the circumstances notified in the First Policy period and the relevant lossnbsp The Court of Appeal's decision RSA successfully appealed the first instance decision The issues which eventually required the installation of hydraulics had the requisite causal link to the circumstances notified in 2007 and therefore attached to the First Policynbsp The wording of the notifications made under the First Policy made clear that Euro Pools knew there was a problem with rising and falling of the booms and that claims might arise from these failuresnbsp The fact that Euro Pools made a precautionary notification demonstrated that they knew there was a chance that using inflatable bags might not fix the problemnbsp In the view of the Court of Appeal, as summarised by Males LJan insured must be aware of a circumstance in order to notify the insurer of that circumstance but there is no requirement that he be aware of the full causal origins and implications of the circumstance notifiedThe Court of Appeal referred to the sequence of measures by Euro Pools to try and make the booms rise and fall properly (first notified in 2007) it used air bags in place of tanks in booms eventually it was decided that the booms could not be made to work with tanks or airbags and it was necessary to install hydraulic cylinders as an alternative design solution for the raising and lowering of the booms there was an unbroken causal chain running through this sequence of design changes There was therefore no new notification made under the Second Policy in 2008 The Court of Appeal emphasised that for Euro Pools to be entitled to recover the costs of the remedial work undertaken to mitigate a potential third party claim, the potential claim must arise from the circumstances notified during the year of the policy under which indemnity is claimed It was not correct to assess whether the mitigatory work arose from the circumstances notified In this case the court's ruling means that Euro Pools' insurance claim is limited to the cap in the First PolicynbspIt is worth noting that a decision that favours a generous application of a claims notification can often benefit the insured who has made a broad statement in order to cover any and all potential future claimsnbspThe obligation on Euro Pools under the policy is to give written notice to RSA as soon as possible after becoming aware of circumstances which might reasonably be expected to produce a claim There need only be a possibility of claims in the future the notification need not be limited to particular eventsComment This decision raises the risk that notifications under claims-made policies can attract a wide scope of cover if the full extent of the facts is not yet known or understoodnbsp The link between the circumstances in the notification and the circumstances that give rise to the claims (or potential claims) must be causal rather than coincidental but the test for causation is, as Males LJ states, not particularly demanding It seems likely that insurers will see an increase in broadcatch-all notifications from insureds, but to be valid, there will still need to be notification of a problem which may give rise to a claimThis article was co-authored by Clare Birchenhough, second year trainee solicitor

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

Insights / Success with subrogation in the UAE

25-05-2021 / Insurance

Insurers often perceive subrogated recoveries as challenging and uncertain in this region and that can be true to some extent. 

Success with subrogation in the UAE

Insights / Insurance & Reinsurance guide 2021

25-01-2021 / Insurance

We are pleased to share with you Chambers and Partners 'Insurance & Reinsurance guide 2021', of which Simon Cooper is the contributing editor.

Insurance & Reinsurance guide 2021

Insights / Supreme Court checks out of Orient Express Hotel

19-01-2021 / Insurance

On 15 January 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in this test case that was initiated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“”FCA”) in order to determine a number of common coverage issues pertaining to the correct response of non-damage business interruption policies to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Supreme Court checks out of Orient Express Hotel

Insights / Decennial Liability in the UAE

05-10-2020 / Insurance

At its core, decennial liability is a form of strict liability imposed on architects, engineers and contractors in the case of total or partial collapse of a building or structure or defects found in the building or structure that threaten the structural integrity of the building.

Decennial Liability in the UAE

Insights / The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Eighth Edition

16-06-2020 / Insurance

We’re pleased to share with you the eighth edition of The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review. Ince is a member of The Law Reviews (TLR) leading panel of contributors and the team this year led by Peter Rogan as the Editor, contributed to the following topics:

The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Eighth Edition

Insights / Chapter 15 - England and Wales

16-06-2020 / Insurance

The UK insurance and reinsurance industry is the largest in Europe and the fourth-largest in the world.

Chapter 15 - England and Wales

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500