Introduction and evolution of insurtech Insurtech—what is it and why does it matter? Insurtech describes the use of technology in the insurance value chain in an innovative way. Disrupting the traditional insurance market, insurtech has helped transform underwriting, distribution, claims and administration by providing accessible solutions to improve delivery of insurance services, reach new customers and develop new products. Historically seen as a topic on the periphery of board agendas in the incumbent space, there is now clear recognition across all stakeholders that insurtech has a significant role to play in the evolution of insurance services. This Practice Note explores the evolution of insurtech and its impact on the insurance industry. Emerging technologies and the UK regulatory landscape are also considered, including practical guidance for those operating in the insurtech space. The evolution of insurtech—2010 to 2020 Insurtech in the early to mid-2010s evolved as a product of several key developments in the technological sphere. It is widely considered that insurtech developed out of the fintech arena, and the drive for better customer

Dispute Resolution analysis: It is not uncommon for parties involved in cross-border disputes to file competing or overlapping lawsuits in different forums. When should a US court stay its hand in favour of a lawsuit filed in another country? Conversely, when should a US court take proactive measures to defend its jurisdiction from interference by proceedings in a foreign court? Maggie Gardner, Cornell Law School, outlines the potential problems posed by parallel proceedings; how US federal courts treat foreign parallel proceedings; the role of anti-suit injunctions to protect US jurisdiction in unusual circumstances; the special case of transnational bankruptcy; and the possibility of an international convention addressing parallel proceedings. The article focuses on federal doctrines regarding parallel proceedings; state courts may have their own approach to these questions.

Exclusive and non-exclusive agency agreements The terms ‘exclusive’, ‘non-exclusive’ and ‘sole’ are used frequently to describe the rights granted under both agency and distribution agreements, but these terms have no set legal meaning and so it is important to define precisely what is meant by these terms within the agreements themselves. The common meaning of these three forms of agency relationships are: • exclusive—only the agent may sell or supply the designated products in the specified territory and the principal may not do so or appoint others to do so • sole—the principal may sell or supply the products in the territory but may not appoint other agents to do so • non-exclusive—the principal may sell or supply the contract goods in the territory and may appoint other agents to do so For further general information on these

This Practice Note provides an introduction to some of the regulatory responsibilities and contractual requirements that firms authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), or 'principals', have in relation to their appointed representatives (ARs). It discusses such issues as appointing an AR, conducting verification, entering into a contract and the notifications that a principal must make to the FCA in relation to its ARs. New regime for appointed representatives Alongside a call for evidence on the AR regime by HM Treasury, in December 2021 the FCA set out in consultation paper CP21/34 its proposals for improving its AR regime. These proposals included gathering additional information on ARs and Introducer Appointed Representatives (IARs) and heightening reporting requirements for principals, as well as clarifying and bolstering the responsibilities and expectations of principals, including improved oversight of ARs by their principals. In August 2022, the FCA published Policy Statement PS22/11, in which it confirmed its new rules for the new, improved regime. The new rules came into effect on 8 December 2022

An a priori assumption is a proposition adopted before examining case-specific evidence, based on logic, policy or generalised expectations rather than proof. In legal practice it describes a mode of reasoning, not a rule; it is not defined in UK or Irish legislation or as a term of art in case law, but appears in judgments, pleadings and academic analysis.Key features and usage:- Contrasts with an a posteriori inference drawn from admissible evidence.- Has no evidential or procedural effect and is distinct from legal presumptions (of law or fact) and from judicial notice, which carry defined consequences for proof.- Appellate courts may criticise findings grounded in a priori assumptions about credibility, human behaviour, risk or market dynamics; tribunals are warned against stereotyping in discrimination, criminal and asylum contexts.- In statutory interpretation and judicial review, courts avoid a priori policy assumptions, focussing instead on text, context and purpose.Practical significance: arguments built on a priori assumptions are vulnerable to challenge as speculation. Practitioners should anchor submissions in admissible evidence and clear legal principle and, where opposing such reasoning, emphasise the burden and standard of proof.Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland.

A re-registration of a private limited company to a public limited company alters the company’s status, but it remains one and the same legal entity (which is why it retains

It is assumed that the company in question is a private company limited by shares. Upon incorporation of a company, the default statutory version of articles of association will apply unless the company adopts its own, customised articles. The version of default articles that applies to any given company is the version in force at the date that the company was registered. Newer versions or amendments to the default statutory articles are not automatically applied to existing companies; the articles will remain unchanged unless and until a company takes action to amend them or adopt new articles.

Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) will, potentially, be chargeable on the transfers by Corporate Trustee A of its interests in the commercial properties to Corporate Trustee B if the corporate trustee does not hold those interests on bare trust for the private pension fund. Whether the holding is on bare trust depends on the terms of the trust instrument under which those properties are held, as explained below. In order for the commercial properties to be held on bare trust, the pension fund would, by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) need

This Q&A raises a number of issues: the acquisition of freehold title by adverse possession where the owner is the Crown, the nature and extent of rights of way and the extent to which they can prevent adverse possession arising. In the present case, a developer built a block of flats and it is assumed that long leases of the flats were

This Q&A raises the circumstances in which a landlord can be prevented from serving a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). In particular, it deals with issue of retaliatory eviction under the Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015). The starting point is that a landlord can usually serve such a notice so as to take effect once the contractual term of an assured tenancy has come to an end. One of the main restrictions upon the service of a section 21 notice is a failure of the landlord to comply with the requirement to protect a deposit in accordance with section 215(1) of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). The focus of this

We refer you to HM Land Registry: Practice Guide 3—cautions against first registration, in particular paragraph 2.1, which provides: ‘...any person who claims to be entitled to an interest affecting a qualifying estate [may apply for a caution against first registration].’ The relevant statutory provision is section 15 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002): ‘15 Right to lodge • Subject to subsection (3), a person may lodge a caution against the registration of title to an unregistered legal estate if he claims to be— (a) the owner

The law relating to the ownership of roadways is often complex. There are statutory and common law principles that, depending on the circumstances of the case, may prevail. There is a statutory presumption that, where a road or path is a highway maintainable at public expense, the surface vests in the highway authority pursuant to section 263 of the Highways Act 1980. However, insofar as the subsurface soil, it is presumed that the owner of land abutting on a road is also the owner of the adjoining section of the road up to the middle line (ad medium filum). There is also a presumption that where a