header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 April 2010 / Andrew Burns KC
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Toxic sofas

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll