- Dishonesty in the context of aggregation of claims revisited in the Court of Appeal (Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles and Gill)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The question in the appeal was whether the dishonesty of a solicitor was sufficient to amount to a unifying feature such that claims were aggregated either at common law or under the terms of the relevant indemnity policy providing for an aggregate limit for claims arising from a single insured act or omission. The insurer pursuing the appeal argued that the solicitor’s thefts formed ‘a series of related acts and that all the claims should be aggregated’. The insurer having already paid out to the limit of the policy if the aggregation was given effect, being £2m, applied for summary judgment at first instance. The insurer’s application failed and the appeal came before the Court of Appeal after permission to appeal on the aggregation point was given by His Honour Judge Saffman (sitting as a High Court) from his judgment. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers (formerly Hardwicke).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial