Menu
Quick search

Ben Ogden

Joint Head of Insurance, Partner London T +44 (0) 20 7481 0010
benogden@incegd.com

Department Commercial Disputes, Insurance

Ben Ogden

You, Ben Ogden
& Ince, in any case

Ben graduated with a modern history degree before turning to the law. He became a partner in 2002 and specialises in contentious insurance work, commercial disputes and regulation.

In addition to his practice Ben lectures regularly on insurance law and about alternative dispute resolution, of which he has considerable experience representing clients. He also co-ordinates some of the firm’s corporate social responsibility activities and is a governor of a local school.

"PRACTICE HEAD BEN OGDEN ALSO ATTRACTS GREAT ACCLAIM, ESPECIALLY FOR HIS WORK ON POST-TRANSACTIONAL DISPUTES...HE IS 'INTELLIGENT, THOROUGH AND EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE'.”

CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS 

INTELLIGENT, THOROUGH AND GREAT TO HAVE ON YOUR SIDE IN CONTENTIOUS MATTERS.”

CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS 

Insurance & Reinsurance

Ben acts for insurers, insureds and brokers in a variety of insurance disputes. He has significant expertise, gained over many years, of professional indemnity insurance, and political, trade and credit risk insurance.

His professional indemnity work has focussed on lawyers, where his experience encompasses all aspects of legal practice; as well as insurance brokers, dealing with complex placements and coverage issues. He has regularly considered issues of dishonesty in the context of PI claims. He has also acted for (and against) other professions.

His political and trade credit risk work has included significant policy drafting as well as handling a range of disputes (for insurers and insureds) involving different subject matter – whether it be non-payment, asset deprivation, or quantification.The claims have arisen in different jurisdictions and have been varying values.

Ben also has experience of other classes of insurance/reinsurance and has recently been engaged in a number of D&O matters.

Regulation

Ben is Ince & Co LLP’s compliance officer for legal practice as well as its global head of risk and compliance. In addition to providing internal advice Ben also advises others on issues concerning regulatory obligations and has advised on dealing with regulators and in respect to regulatory investigations, principally within the legal profession.

Commercial Disputes

Ben has acted in a variety of commercial disputes connected to the acquisition or operation of businesses. Notable sale and purchase disputes have arisen from the warranties given on the acquisition of a shipyard and the sale of a Lloyd’s agency.He has acted in many cases alleging secret profits, most notably two long trials (and the subsequent appeals) in relation to commissions.

The majority of Ben’s work has been in Court and he has significant trial experience, but he has regularly used ADR as a means of settling disputes.

My recent publications

News / Who Will Guard the Guards? Supreme Court Determines the Rights of Non-Parties to Documents Used in Court Proceedings

14-08-2019 / Insurance

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2018] EWCA Civ 1795 The Supreme Court has clarified the extent of a non-party’s right to request copies of documents filed with the court in a case of importance to all litigants concerned about the confidentiality of their documents.

Who Will Guard the Guards? Supreme Court Determines the Rights of Non-Parties to Documents Used in Court Proceedings

News / SAAMCO and Hughes-Holland reconsidered

21-05-2018 / Insurance

In South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltdnbsp1996 UKHL 10 (SAAMCO), the House of Lords limited recovery of damages from a negligent professional advisor to losses which fall within the scope of the advisor's duty Last year, innbspBPE Solicitors v Hughes-Hollandnbsp2017 UKSC 21, the Supreme Court reinforced and clarified the application of the SAAMCO principle in claims against solicitors Now, innbspManchester BuildingnbspSociety v Grant Thornton LLPnbsp2018 EWHC 963, the Commercial Court has considered its application in the context of an accountants' negligence claim

SAAMCO and Hughes-Holland reconsidered

News / DO coverage dispute Commercial Court considers issues of German and English law

13-03-2018 / Insurance

In Woodford v AIG Europe, the Commercial Court ordered the insurer AIG to indemnify the claimants insured under a DO policy for legal costs incurred in defending a claim against them for breach of directors' duties The policy in question was subject to German law and the judgment is of interest both from a German and an English perspective

DO coverage dispute Commercial Court considers issues of German and English law

News / Professional behaviour honesty the same as integrity

12-03-2018 / Insurance

The Court of Appeal decision in Wingate v SRAnbspandnbspSRA v Malinsnbspgrappled with thenbspmeaning of integrity in the context of professional conductnbspMost professional codes of conduct contain a requirement tonbspact with integritynbspThe judgment regards that as a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which professions expect from their own members

Professional behaviour  honesty the same as integrity

News / Notifying insurers about likely claims

23-11-2015 / Insurance

In Maccaferri Limited v Zurich Insurance Plc [2015] EWHC 1708, Mr Justice Knowles held that an obligation on an insured to notify as soon as possible an event which is likely to give rise to a claim as soon as possible does not import a duty on the part of the insured proactively to make enquiries for such events.

Notifying insurers about likely claims

News / Estoppel Not Easy to Prove

01-06-2015 / Insurance

The High Court has confirmed, in IHC (a firm) and another v Amtrust Europe Ltd [2015] EWHC 257, the difficulties that an insured will face in establishing an estoppel against an insurer that avoids a claim on the basis of the insured’s fraudulent misrepresentation. The fact that, in this case, the claim was brought by a third party under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 made the Claimant’s case even more difficult to prove. The claimant in such circumstances effectively steps into the shoes of the insured but will often have little control or ability to bring the evidence it requires to establish the reliance by the insured that is a necessary element to establish an estoppel.

Estoppel Not Easy to Prove