header-logo header-logo

Attention please!

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll