header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Toxic sofas

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. 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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur
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
NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion
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
NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?
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
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll