Insurance distribution

As a general rule, law firms are not permitted to engage directly in insurance distribution activities, unless they are licensed by the FCA. This document focuses on law firms engaging in insurance distribution activities in the capacity of an ancillary insurance intermediary, which is permitted. This is most likely to be relevant to law firms engaging in conveyancing, personal injury or private client work.

What is insurance distribution?

Insurance distribution activities are, broadly:

  1. advising on or proposing an insurance contract

  2. carrying out other work in preparation for the conclusion of an insurance contract or concluding an insurance contract

  3. assisting in the administration and performance of an insurance contract

  4. providing insurance comparison information via website

For the detailed definitions, see Practice Note: Insurance distribution activities—law firms—What are insurance distribution activities?

Insurance distribution v introduction

The definition of insurance distribution does not include ‘introducing’.

This means you will not have to comply with the requirements of the insurance distribution regime if you merely introduce the client to an insurance provider—save that where you introduce the client to an insurance intermediary (ie broker), you

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Practice Compliance News

Data by any other name—Court of Appeal reverses Upper Tribunal’s ruling on the protection of ‘personal data’ (DSG v ICO)

Information Law analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), holding that it is sufficient that data which has been subjected to unauthorised or unlawful processing by a third party still constitutes personal data from the perspective of the data controller, even if it is pseudonymised ‘in the hands of’ the data controller and therefore anonymised ‘in the hands of’ the attacker. Accordingly, the court held, the data controller is required to take ‘appropriate technical and organisational measures’ (ATOMs) to protect that personal data against such hackers, even where those third parties cannot themselves identify the individuals to whom the data relates. Even though this judgment is under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), this decision is significant as it confirms, in terms equally applicable to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), that the scope of the security obligation is not diminished merely because stolen or exfiltrated data would be anonymised in the hands of the third party with unlawful access. This development expands and makes more pressing the obligation on controllers to assess and guard against a broader range of threats—including ransomware, data destruction, and bulk exfiltration, regardless of the attacker's capacity to re-identify data subjects. Written by Adelaide Lopez, senior associate at Wiggin LLP.

View Practice Compliance by content type :

Popular documents