Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 APRIL 2010

Notification of Circumstances - An Objective Test?

HFW
HFW
Contributor
HFW

HFW

HFW is a sector-focused law firm with people who have a real passion for the sectors they work in,...

View firm profile
Explore more from HFW

The recent case of Loyaltrend v Brit UW Limited & Others, relating to damages under a property policy for business interruption arising out of a subsidence claim, further considered and applied the principles set down by the Court in the recent spate of decisions on notification in liability policies, specifically the cases of Kidsons, Laker Vent and Aspen.

United KingdomInsurance
Alison Zobel
Alison Zobel
Tahneet Irshad
Tahneet Irshad

Published in HFW's Insurance/Reinsurance Bulletin April, 2010.

(1) Loyaltrend Limited (2) Sye Razvi v (1) Creechurch Dedicated Limited (2) Brit UW Limited (3) Catlin (Five) Limited [2010] EWHC 425 (Comm)

The recent case of Loyaltrend v Brit UW Limited & Others, relating to damages under a property policy for business interruption arising out of a subsidence claim, further considered and applied the principles set down by the Court in the recent spate of decisions on notification in liability policies, specifically the cases of Kidsons1, Laker Vent2 and Aspen3. It was held that the test for whether a claim "may be made" was an objective one and further that the failure to "immediately" notify the potential claim to insurers was sufficient to invalidate the claim.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from