header-logo header-logo

28 April 2017 / Steven O'Sullivan
Issue: 7743 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Attention please!

nlj_7743_woodman

Steven O’Sullivan examines the wide-reaching implications of AIG v Woodman

  • The Supreme Court’s judgment in AIG v Woodman is a welcome, lucid and sensible application of the interpretation of the relatively new solicitors’ indemnity aggregation clause.

On 22 March, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the most important case in over a decade on aggregation of insurance claims. One might think that this case is relevant only to insurance lawyers and not really of interest to the wider legal profession (see AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors [2017] UKSC 18, [2017] All ER (D) 151 (Mar)). However, in fact it has wide-reaching implications not just for claimants but for everyone who is unfortunate enough to face multiple claims. It is therefore relevant to all those charged with insuring against such claims, including solicitors in practice. Although AIG is a solicitors’ liability case, the implications go beyond solicitors, due to the presence of such clauses in insurance policies, particularly professional indemnity policies.

Facts of the case

The defendants, a firm of solicitors (the solicitors),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll