header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Toxic sofas

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
29 April 2010 / Andrew Burns KC
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Andrew Burns examines the insurance angles of recent PI claims

The “Toxic Sofas” litigation involves personal injury claims against Land of Leather (LoL) and other retailers for selling defective furniture manufactured in China. On 26 April 2010 the High Court approved a matrix for calculating settlement payments to claimants wishing to settle. However a number of claimants had already lost their recovery claims against the insurers of LoL, Zurich Insurance. Zurich refused to pay as LoL had settled with the Chinese manufacturer without its consent. The claimants brought claims directly against Zurich under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 after LoL went into admininstration.

LoL argued that there was no intention to settle personal injury claims—only its own direct losses. Nothing had been paid for such a wide-ranging settlement, which would have been an unreasonable deal for LoL. In Horwood v Land of Leather & Zurich Insurance [2010] EWHC 546 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare said that even if a particular construction leads to an unreasonable result, the fact that an agreement was

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

Read All
Sponsored by
DWF—Ed Williams

DWF—Ed Williams

Public sector disputes capability bolstered by partner hire in Leeds

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Firm strengthens corporate, real estate and insolvency teams with partner trio

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Consultant and solicitor join commercial real estate team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll