Ross Risby explains why and when courts are willing to widen a broker’s duty
The regulatory microscope has recently been turned on the broking community by the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, in the US and the Financial Services Authority in the UK, where the focus has included a review of the transparency of broking practices. Outside the regulatory field, how have brokers fared in the courts?
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd [2006] EWHC 485 (Comm), [2006] All ER (D) 209 (Mar) formed part of the long-running film finance litigation, and was a spin-off of the HIH and New Hampshire litigation (see HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire Insurance Co [2001] EWCA Civ 735, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 39).
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (HIH) insured various film production companies. New Hampshire Insurance Co (New Hampshire) reinsured the risks on a back-to-back basis. There was a warranty in the original and reinsurance policies concerning the number of films to be made. When the insured
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
