![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings & Ors v. Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd [2003] UKHL 48 (31 July 2003) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/48.html Cite as: [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 665, [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 623, [2003] 4 All ER 43, [2003] Lloyd's Rep IR 623, [2003] Pens LR 315, [2003] UKHL 48 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
Judgments -
Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others v. Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Limited
|
HOUSE OF LORDS |
SESSION 2002-03 |
OPINIONS
OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants)
v.
Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Limited (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents)
ON
THURSDAY 31 JULY 2003
The Appellate Committee comprised:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Lord Millett
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD
My Lords,
LORD HOFFMANN
My Lords,
LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH
My Lords,
The Policy:
There was a very high limit on the insurer's overall liability under the policy which is therefore irrelevant for present purposes. The deductible is dealt with in clause 2 which provides that the policy only covers "that part of each and every third party claim" which exceeds the deductible and continues:
This provision uses the phrase "act or omission" which is later defined to mean exactly the same as the categories (a) to (j) in the insuring clause which it again quotes in full. So, if the third party claim qualifies under (g) it is the wording of (g) which defines "act or omission" as used in the aggregation clause.
The Facts:
It is alleged, and must for present purposes be assumed to be true, that (i) the failures to give best advice on the part of the 'consultants' concerned and (ii) the acceptance of, or failure to reject, proposed pension transfer business on the part of the claimant concerned, its officers or employees, arose from the same underlying origin or were of an identical or very similar nature.
The Court of Appeal:
Discussion:
Accordingly where the words falling into the second category were used, losses caused by a mistake shared in common by three different underwriters as to the nature of the LMX spiral could be the single underlying cause of their having entered into a series of fatally defective reinsurance treaties and could therefore be the unifying factor justifying the aggregation of the losses suffered under those treaties, whereas the use of words falling into the first category would not suffice.
LORD MILLETT
My Lords,
LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE
My Lords,