header-logo header-logo

Insurance

10 February 2011
Issue: 7452 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Ground Gilbey Ltd and another company v Jardine Lloyd Thompson UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 124 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 38 (Feb)

A broker owes his client a duty to take reasonable steps to obtain a policy which clearly met his client’s needs and was suitable for the client. An aspect of that was that the client should not be exposed to an unnecessary risk of legal disputes with the insurer.

The broker owed his client a duty to draw to the client’s attention any onerous or unusual terms or conditions, and should explain to the client their nature and effect. After the risk had been placed, there was a continuing duty on the broker, when he became aware of information which had a material and potentially deleterious effect on the insurance cover which had placed, to act in his client’s best interest by drawing it to the attention of his client and obtain his instructions in relation to it.
 

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll