header-logo header-logo

18 June 2010
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Indemnity renewal headache

Hiked premiums, fewer indemnity insurance providers

Solicitors face a tough indemnity insurance market this year and should look for renewed cover as soon as possible, the Law Society has warned.

The society updated its practice note on professional indemnity insurance (PII) last week to highlight anticipated problems and offer solicitors guidance on how to find the best deal before the 1 October deadline. It warns the market has hardened due to:
l some qualifying insurers exiting the market;
l some insurers narrowing the types of firms offered cover;
l the collapse of the housing market and an increase in mortgage-related fraud leading to concerns among insurers about an imminent increase in conveyancing-related claims; and
l an increase in the amount and value of claims insurers are receiving.
Insurers are scrutinising forms more carefully and being more selective, the practice note warns. Some law firms have had to accept “significantly increased premiums” or have been unable to obtain cover. According to the practice note, “even firms with a clean claims history have experienced difficulties”.

Sole practitioners, firms with fewer than five partners, and firms that perform conveyancing work are among the most affected.
Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk solicitors, which advises law firms on risk management, says: “It’s highly likely that a significant number of firms won’t get cover or won’t be able to afford it.

“Getting your proposal form in doesn’t mean you’ll get taken on. It’ll be more chaotic this time than last year, particularly at the smaller end of the market.
“Larger firms will find cover, although those that have had claims problems may face a premium hike.”

The society advises that firms should have begun their renewal process by May, and warns that, if claims increase this year, insurers will increase their premiums to recoup their losses. The practice note offers guidance on applying for PII from the assigned risks pool.
 

Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll