header-logo header-logo

Car on fire not covered

27 March 2019
Issue: 7834 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
A third-party liability insurance policy did not cover an accident occurring while a car was being fixed on private premises, the Supreme Court has held, in Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance [2010] UKSC 16. The court held that the damage was caused by alleged negligence in carrying out the repairs, not the prior use of the car as a means of transport. The car’s owner, Mr Holden, accidentally set fire to it while repairing it at the premises of his employer, Phoenix Engineering, causing £2m damage to Phoenix and its neighbour.
Issue: 7834 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll