The laws under which you arrange commercial insurance are changing, creating new duties for insurers and policyholders to comply with.

The legislation is seeking to create a new and fairer balance between policyholder and insurer and to raise professional standards at placement.

DID YOU KNOW?

1: Insurers will lose their historic rights to repudiate claims for breaches of condition irrelevant to the loss suffered

2: They will also be unable to avoid the policy when material non-disclosure is discovered if they would still have written the risk

3: If underwriters do not read through submissions thoroughly, and ask follow up questions, before agreeing to accept a risk then they will waive the right to rely on information that those queries would have revealed

4: Underwriters will need to allot more time to review each submission and consider the risk

5: If insurers seek to contract out of the new law they will need to do so in a clear and transparent way that takes the type of sale into account

BUT IN RETURN, POLICYHOLDERS WILL NEED TO MAKE A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT TO ASSIST THE UNDERWRITER IN UNDERSTANDING THE RISK:

A: Policyholders will have to ask anyone benefitting from cover whether they know anything material about the risk. For a Directors’ and Officers’ policy this could mean questioning anyone in a management capacity.

B: All presentations must be reasonably clear and accessible to the insurer. This means that just providing a link to a website will not meet the new standard, nor will ‘data dumping’ or sending over lots of data in an unstructured format.

C: There is new and explicit duty to ask questions of the whole business, not just senior staff, before renewal. The level of questioning needed will depend on the specific size and nature of the business, not what other policyholders in the market are doing.

D: In the event that key information is not provided to the insurer and this is discovered – e.g. during the investigation of a big claim – the insurer can add in the new exclusions or sub-limits that apply from the start of the policy. This means that previously settled claims could be unravelled as well as the new claim being undermined.

BIBA and Mactavish have produced ‘Insurance Act 2015 – An Introductory Guide’ to provide a toolkit to respond to client questions on change and set out areas to consider ahead of the law coming into force. Please contact us if you would like a copy.

Following their Annual General Meeting on 23rd April we are delighted to confirm that our two Directors, Richard Garratt and John Grindley, have been elected to the positions of President and Deputy President of the Insurance Institute of Preston & Blackpool respectively.

This is a huge honour for them both and demonstrates the respect shown to them by their peers within the local Insurance community.

In addition, Anne Mansfield, Matt Garratt and James Grindley will also serve as Council members for the Institute for the next 12 months.

Many congratulations to you all.

LEADERS IN DEFENDING LSI CLAIMS FEBRUARY 2015

Jared Mallinson
Partner
Horwich Farrelly Solicitors

Welcome to the latest edition of For the Record detailing Aviva’s Low Severity Impact Trial outcomes from January, and what a start to the year it was! No less than 55 claimants pressed on to trial and 40 came unstuck! With 37 losing their claims at trial, 2 discontinuing their and a final claimant accepting a nominal small claims offer made a long time ago, meaning, in reality that they will not see their damages and their solicitors will receive no costs. A pleasing start to the year with a 73% success record.

We have seen some fantastic results in the cases governed by QOWCS and it appears that Judges are more open to arguments regarding fundamental dishonesty. Just last month there were a further two findings in the cases of Eric Ojo v Christopher Eade (Woolwich CC, 8 January 2015) and Usman Younis v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield CC, 23 January 2015). Details can be found below.

To add to the record, we continue to receive positive feedback from satisfied customers, impressed with our professional yet personable approach. For full details of feedback in the cases of Adam Leighton & Michael Molyneux v Nick Owsianka & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bolton CC, 19 January 2015) and Chris Mellor v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Lincoln CC, 7 January 2015), please see below.
For details of the cases that went to trial and some useful hints for handling LSI claims in future, please read on, and should you need further details of any of the cases, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0161 214 5762 or email jared.mallinson@horwichfarrelly.co.uk

Jared Mallinson
Partner

Chris Mellor v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Lincoln County Court, 7 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: UK Law Nationwide
This incident occurred as the defendant was reversing out of a parking bay and the claimant drove, without warning, into the rear of his vehicle. It was the claimant’s case that he was already parked when the defendant reversed into him and as a result of the impact, he suffered injury.

Read more…

Eric Ojo v Christopher Eade (Woolwich County Court, 8 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Scott Rees
This incident occurred whilst the defendant was performing a parallel parking manoeuvre. His parking sensors had led him to error, as they had been set to the manufacturer’s settings, which did not take into account his tow bar. Therefore, as he was reversing his tow bar pierced the claimant’s front bumper and when he pulled away, it removed the front bumper of the claimant’s vehicle. In contrast, it was the claimant’s case that when the contact occurred; his head went back onto the head rest and bounced forwards causing him personal injury.

Read more…

Salma Younis v Nationwide Direct Couriers Ltd (Walsall County Court, 12 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Eden & Co.
The defendant approached a roundabout and upon seeing that it was clear, he pulled onto the roundabout, and moved into the inside lane. Just before he reached the exit, he checked his mirrors and indicated left in order to merge into the outside lane. It was at this point that the claimant’s vehicle attempted to undertake him, making contact with the rear offside corner of his vehicle. It was the claimant’s case however, that the defendant had driven into collision with her vehicle having failed to give way at the roundabout. She sought to rely on evidence from her 3 passengers to support her case. Liability was therefore disputed.

Read more…

Mary Thomason v Ann Black (Birkenhead County Court, 12 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
This was both a liability, and causation dispute. It was the claimant’s case that she was stationary when the defendant reversed into her as she attempted to park her vehicle. The defendant’s case was that she checked her mirrors to see whether the coast was clear for her to begin her manoeuvre. She said that she did not see the claimant until she was 3/4 of the way into the car parking space which was when the contact occurred.

Read more…

Christopher Hallsworth & Samantha Moody v Claire Linfoot (13 January 2015, Telford County Court)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenters Solicitors
The parties were in stop/start traffic on the approach to a junction when the claimants’ vehicle came to a stop in line with the traffic. It was the defendant’s case that, although she applied her brakes; her vehicle did not come to a complete stop in time with the result that her vehicle came into minor contact with the rear of the claimants’ vehicle. She described the accident as incredibly minor and could not accept that either claimant was injured. The claimants said that they were jolted forwards upon contact and began to immediately feel pain.

Read more…

Lauren Brookes v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Birmingham County Court, 13 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lamb & Co.
The defendant was stationary behind the claimant’s vehicle, waiting to enter a roundabout. When the claimant’s vehicle moved forwards, the defendant followed, however; the claimant suddenly braked and the defendant was unable to stop before minor contact occurred between the vehicles. The claimant said that she was thrown forwards and backwards forcefully in her seat and suffered injury as a result.

Read more…

Barrie Greenhalgh v Derek Dickinson (Wigan County Court, 14 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenters Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that he had travelled over a series of speed bumps and was stationary at a roundabout when the defendant drove into the rear of his vehicle, shunting him onto the roundabout. The defendant was an elderly gentleman who accepted that the parties had travelled over the series of speed bumpers before the contact occurred. However, it was his case that before the last speed bump, he had become momentarily distracted and not realised that the claimant had reduced his speed considerably. The defendant immediately applied his brakes but could not stop before minor contact occurred; before the roundabout.

Read more…

Kye Waters v Pars Halal Foods (Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court, 14 January 2014)
Claimant Solicitor: Gavin Edmonson
The claimant’s case was that he was stationary, ahead of a box junction, when he noticed the defendant’s driver approaching behind him at speed. He said that the defendant’s driver failed to stop and made contact with the rear of his vehicle causing him to be jolted forward. It was the defendant’s case however, that he had managed to stop before making contact with the claimant’s stationary vehicle. Therefore, it was denied that there was any collision at all.

Read more…

Georgina Atta-Afram v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bow County Court, 15 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
The claimant was a passenger in a taxi which was directly in front of the defendant’s stationary vehicle; both were indicating to turn left. The claimant’s vehicle moved forwards and entered the road and in turn, the defendant also moved forwards. As he moved off, the defendant looked to his right to check for traffic when he felt a light touch to the front of his vehicle. It was at this point that he realised that he had made contact with the rear of the taxi which had stopped without him realising.

Read more…

Barbar Arshad v Devine Building & Maintenance Limited (Manchester County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lex Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that he was stationary, with his indicator on, intending to turn right. He had barely turned his vehicle when he was struck from behind by the claimant. Conversely, it was the claimant’s case that the defendant stopped abruptly in the road and performed a u-turn with the result that he could not avoid contact with the defendant’s vehicle. It was his case that he was moved when the collision occurred and was so shocked that he had a brief moment to compose himself before exiting his van.

Read more…

Khresknik Shiqerukaj v Alexandre Miguel Costa (Dartford County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Michael Halsalls
This incident occurred at a set of traffic lights when the defendant was stationary behind the claimant’s vehicle. When the lights changed to green and the claimant set off, so did the defendant. Almost immediately, the claimant applied his brakes and the defendant could not avoid making light contact with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. It was the claimant’s case that whilst stationary, he felt a moderate impact from behind which caused his vehicle to be shunted forwards and he was restrained by his seatbelt.

Read more…

Emma Howcroft v Kevin Brown (Oldham County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Russell Worth Solicitors
The incident occurred as the defendant was passing by the claimant’s vehicle on a busy road. The only contact between the vehicles was between the wing mirrors of the vehicles and the defendant could not accept that the claimant was injury. It was the claimant’s case that the clipping of the wing mirrors caused her to swerve and hit the kerb causing injury.

Read more…

Joanne Beck v Anatom Limited (Peterborough County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Micahel Halsalls
The claimant stated that she was stationary, in a parking space, when the defendant reversed into her, colliding with her offside wing mirror and door. The defendant was adamant that he was slowly manoeuvring into the parking space and, as the claimant nipped her vehicle into the space next to him, the vehicles came into light glancing contact. There was very minor damage to both vehicles and the defendant could not accept that the claimant could possibly have been injured.

Read more…

Adam Leighton & Michael Molyneux v Nick Owsianka & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bolton County Court, 19 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Curtis Law
This was a case where the defendant was travelling behind the claimants’ van in slow moving traffic on a slip road. His sat nav fell into the foot well so he bent down to pick it up and when he looked up, he realised that the claimants’ van had come to a stop in front of him. He braked and swerved, almost managing to miss the claimants’ van altogether but clipped the rear driver’s side corner. It was the claimants’ case that the collision was so severe that it pushed them into the hard shoulder.

Read more…

Rajinder Ashta v Harminder Singh (Birmingham County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Armstrongs Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that he had slowed to turn into a petrol station and as he was waiting to turn, the defendant collided with the rear of his vehicle. The defendant’s said that he was travelling behind the claimant’s vehicle and noticed that the claimant was driving in an odd manner; braking for no reason. The claimant then suddenly applied the brakes at the entrance to the petrol station and although the defendant braked, he wasn’t quite able to bring his car to a stop and made minor contact with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle.

Read more…

Abbie Kelly v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Liverpool County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Paul Crowley
In this case, the defendant accepted that, as the claimant was turning into a T-junction, she pulled out and misjudged the space she had. As such, minor contact occurred between the front driver’s side corner of the defendant’s vehicle and the rear driver’s side corner of the claimant’s vehicle. Given that the incident occurred at such a slow speed, the defendant could not accept that the claimant was injured.

Read more…

James Southall v Parveen Kumar (Walsall County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Distinctly Legal
This incident occurred as the defendant was attempting to take a right hand turn from a stationary position. It was his case that the claimant jumped a red light in the opposite direction and drove directly into his path whilst he was beginning to perform his right hand turn. He applied his brakes but he was unable to stop and his wheel scuffed the rear bumper of the claimant’s vehicle. The claimant’s case was that he was stationary, intending to turn right, when the defendant hit him from behind.

Read more…

Mark Symons & 4 others v Stephanie Moody (Liverpool County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Paul Crowley
The defendant was behind the claimants’ vehicle in bumper to bumper traffic. The traffic flow was stilted and the defendant was slowly moving forwards and stopping quite frequently; as was the claimants’ vehicle. Surprisingly, the driver of the claimants’ vehicle got out and approached the defendant, claiming that she had made contact with the rear of his vehicle. The contact was so minor that the defendant had not even realised that there had been any but did accept she may have touched the claimant’s vehicle.

Read more…

Chen Meng v Joanna Dascaloudi (Willesden County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Silverbeck Rymer
This was a case where the claimant was stationary at a set of traffic lights and as the defendant drove past, in the right hand lane, she accidentally made minor contact with his vehicle. As a result of the contact, the claimant said he was jolted and injured.

Read more…

Dora Buzi & 3 others v Colin Mills (Edmonton County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Horwich Cohen Coghlan
The defendant was waiting to put petrol in his vehicle but as the vehicle ahead of him was taking too long, he decided to reverse and move to a petrol pump that was free. The defendant looked over both shoulders and in his rear view mirror and could not see any vehicles; he therefore eased slightly on the accelerator and steered his vehicle to the left. The defendant had reversed only a short distance when he felt slight resistance to his rear and realised that he had made contact with a vehicle occupied by the claimant and her children. The first claimant suggested that the defendant reversed at 30mph and that the impact was severe enough to move her within her seat.

Read more…

Daniel Pascal v Marie Lindsell (Lambeth County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Camps Solicitors
The defendant was behind the claimant’s van in bumper to bumper traffic and was crawling forwards with the traffic flow when she failed to stop in time and made light contact with the rear of the claimant’s van. It was the claimant’s case that, as a result of the contact, his van was shunted forwards approximately 2 metres. The defendant could not accept this, or that the claimant was injured.

Read more…

Anthony Finnigan & Sarah Pidgeon v Ridha Ben Abdeljelil (Hammersmith County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Winn Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that he was parked on the side of the road with the intention to do a 3 point turn. He tuned his steering wheel to the right and drove towards the middle of the road; he then put his vehicle into reverse and began to move slowly back, towards the kerb. As he was reversing, he made contact with the claimants’ vehicle which was parked at the side of the road where he had originally been positioned. The claimants stated that they were both thrown sideways by the impact. However, the defendant described the impact as gentle and disputed that the claimants were injured as alleged.

Read more…

Mohammed Laleh v Natasha Menton (Milton Keynes County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Integrity Legal
The defendant was in the process of parking in a parking bay and as she pulled forwards to straighten up, she made minor contact with the side of the claimant’s vehicle. It was the defendant’s case that the contact was extremely minor. The claimant said that the impact jolted him to the right, causing him to be shocked, shaken and injured.

Read more…

Jennifer Winckle v Aftab Ahmad (Birkenhead County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Camps Solicitors
The defendant conceded that he failed to notice that the claimant’s vehicle, which had begun to reverse from a parking space behind him, as he was slowly reversing from his parking space. Contact occurred and, as the defendant accepted that the claimant’s vehicle may have been stationary when contact occurred, liability was admitted. However, causation was firmly in dispute as the defendant said he was travelling slowly and hardly felt the contact. It was the claimant’s case that she was jolted and injured as a result of the impact.

Read more…

Cardale Tobias-Dalphinis v Daniel Tonna (Lambeth County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: JC & A Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that the defendant entered his lane and collided with the driver’s side of his vehicle, as they exited a roundabout. However, it was the defendant’s case that he saw the claimant approaching quickly in the left hand lane but he remained correctly positioned in the right hand lane and exited the roundabout. The claimant also exited the roundabout but as he did so, he made glancing contact with the passenger side of the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant disputed both liability and causation of injury.

Read more…

Usman Younis v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Middleton Solicitors
This was a case which was initially successfully defended at trial on 13 October 2014. Liability was accepted but causation was in dispute, as the defendant could not accept that the incident was severe enough to cause personal injury to the claimant. Following the trial, the Judge ordered that costs be dealt with at a further hearing as the matter was governed by the QOWCS regime.

Read more…

Brian Maggs v Penny Giles (Bath County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenter Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that she was reversing slowly from her drive way when she made minor contact with the claimant’s vehicle, which was been parked on the cul-de-sac where she lived. The defendant was adamant that the contact was incapable of causing injury to the claimant. It was the claimant’s case that the defendant reversed at considerable speed off her drive way causing a severe jolt to his vehicle.

Read more…

Roya Seyed & Mehrdad Kia v Valerie Robinson (Halifax County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Ramsdens Solicitors
It was the claimants’ case that they were passengers in a taxi that was hit in the rear, at speed, and shunted forwards. The defendant’s case was that she was proceeding along in a ‘stop start’ fashion behind the taxi when suddenly, the taxi braked. The defendant also braked but could not avoid making minor contact with the rear of the vehicle.

Read more…

Agnieska Weranis v JKL Heaters (Slough County Court, 26 January 2014)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
Both parties entered onto a roundabout, manoeuvred around it and exited at the same time. As they were exiting the roundabout, glancing contact occurred. The claimant said that she sustained injury as a result; however, the defendant maintained that the contact was of a glancing nature and he could not accept that the claimant was injured.

Read more…

Gary Fleetwood v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Birmingham County Court, 26 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
The defendant’s case was that he was in the process of changing lanes when the claimant, who was travelling behind him, tried to overtake him. This caused the nearside of the claimant’s vehicle to come into contact with the offside of the defendant’s vehicle. The claimant, who was a police officer, denied the allegation made by the defendant and stated that he was correctly established in his lane when suddenly, and without warning, the defendant attempted to change lanes and drove into a collision with his vehicle. Both liability and causation were in dispute.

Read more…

Maria McDonald & 4 others v James Tierney (Liverpool County Court, 27 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: PNM Law
This was a case where we were faced with 5 claimants; 2 adults and 3 minors under 10. The defendant accepted that he was distracted by someone behind him sounding their horn and as a result, he failed to notice that the claimants’ vehicle had come to a stop in front of him. Very minor contact occurred between the vehicles; however, the defendant denied that the claimants could have been injured.

Read more…

Rosemary Ennis & Kyle Ennis v Gail Jonathon & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield County Court, 27 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Whitestones Solicitors
The claimants were passengers in the policy holder’s vehicle. They had been travelling along a road when they pulled up behind a parked car to allow a vehicle pass in the other direction. As the policy holder pulled out, she failed to notice a motorbike travelling along the road and the vehicles came into light glancing contact. When a claim was received from the motorcyclist, initially the policyholder denied liability and confirmed no injuries could have been sustained. However, it was clear that the policyholder was at fault for the accident so liability was admitted and the motorcyclists claim settled. Despite the policy holder advising initially that no one was injured and the incident was very minor, her passenger’s intimated claims. As such indemnity was withdrawn from the policyholder and the claims defended.

Read more…

Raja Khan v Islam Hussain (Newcastle County Court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Easthams Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that, after being stationary at a set of traffic lights, he realised he needed to move into the lane to his left. As he began to change lanes, his front nearside door brushed past the front offside of the claimant’s vehicle. He had only moved a short distance and was travelling slowly when contact occurred. As such, he could not accept that the claimant could have been injured as a result of the incident. The claimant described a much more serious version of events, rating the force of the impact as 6-7 out of 10.

Read more…

Stephen Ashcroft, Sharon Hughes & Kain Trotter v June Wilson (Wigan County Court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Bollin Legal
It was the defendant’s case that she was travelling behind the claimants’ vehicle in stop start traffic, when she became distracted and made light contact with the rear of their vehicle. The claimants’ case was that the defendant had failed to stop and just collided with the rear of their vehicle causing them to be jolted and injured.

Read more…

Janet Barnes & Alan Barnes v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Hastings County court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Hampson Hughes Solicitors
The claimants’ case was that they were stationary on a main road when the defendant ‘ploughed’ into the rear of their vehicle, causing them injury. It was the defendant’s case that he was slowly proceeding behind the claimant’s vehicle on his scooter. The traffic was heavy and the weather conditions were wet. Suddenly, the claimants’ vehicle braked, so he braked too, but owing to the wet road surface, his scooter continued to slide forwards. He put out his hand in a bid to stop himself and leant on the windscreen of the claimant’s vehicle. However, he was unable to avoid his scooter making minor contact with the rear of the claimants’ vehicle.

Read more…

Parveen Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Manchester County Court, 29 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lopian Wagner Solicitors
The claimant was a passenger on a bus when the defendant’s insured collided with the front offside bumper. It was the claimant’s case, that as a result of the contact, she was thrown forwards and had to put her arm out to save her daughter from falling from her seat. The defendant obtained CCTV footage and relied on this evidence only at trial.

Read more…

Neville Tucker v Manjit Singh (Doncaster County Court, 29 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Ralli Solicitors legal
This was both a liability and a causation dispute. It was the claimant’s case that he a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle when the defendant performed an emergency stop which caused him to be moved in his seat and injured. It was the defendant’s case, that whilst he had a vague memory of the journey, he denied could not recall any incident which would have caused him to brake so suddenly.

Read more…

Disclaimer & Copyright Notice
The contents of this document are considered accurate at the time of delivery. The information provided does not constitute specific legal advice. You should always consult a suitably qualified solicitor about any individual legal matter. Horwich Farrelly Solicitors accepts no liability for errors or omissions in this document.

All rights reserved. This material provided is for personal use only. No part may be distributed to any other party without the prior written permission of Horwich Farrelly Solicitors or the copyright holder. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical photocopying, microfilming, recording, scanning or otherwise for commercial purposes without the written permission of Horwich Farrelly or the copyright holder.

This document explains Allianz Commercial’s response to the key elements of the reforms enacted by the Insurance Act 2015, and details how these changes will impact Garratts and our customers.

Introduction
Since 2006 the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission have been conducting a joint review to reform insurance contract law for consumer, marine and non-consumer insurance.

The review has been phased with the first stage culminating in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. This covers one discrete area of consumer insurance law and applies to policies issued or renewed on or after 6th April 2013. The 2012 Act replaced the consumer’s duty to volunteer information with a duty to answer the insurer’s questions honestly and reasonably.

On 12th February 2015, Parliament passed the second piece of legislation, the Insurance Act 2015. This Act reforms post contractual issues for consumer and non-consumer insurance contracts alike and pre-contractual obligations on commercial policyholders to make a fair presentation of the risk. These latest reforms represent the largest overhaul to insurance contract law in England, Scotland and Wales in over a century. They are intended to bring the market into the twenty first century by rebalancing rights and remedies when things go wrong.

Insurers have the option to opt out of these changes or embrace them by August 2016. As we always have the customer at the forefront of what we do, we have gone above and beyond the actions required and intend to adopt the reforms with immediate effect.

The key provisions relate to disclosure, warranties, conditions and fraud, as follows:

Duty of Disclosure and Representation

The duty of disclosure is retained for business insurance, as part of a wider ‘duty to make a fair presentation of the risk’. The duty is satisfied if either all material circumstances are disclosed by the business, or sufficient information is provided to put the insurer on notice to make further enquiries.

Remedy for Failing to Make a Fair Presentation of the Risk

If a business fails to make such disclosure, the insurer‘s remedies must be proportionate (other than where non-disclosure is fraudulent or reckless), based on what the insurer would have done if it had received a fair presentation of the risk.

Basis of Contract clauses (Warranties)

Basis of contract clauses are abolished for all classes of insurance. These are clauses which incorporate all statements made in the proposal form as warranties in to the insurance policy.

Remedy for breach of Warranty

All warranties are made remediable. If a business breaches a warranty, the insurer’s liability is suspended for the duration of the breach. If the breach is remedied before a loss occurs, the insurer has to pay the claim.

Remedy for breach of terms designed to reduce particular types or risk

Where an insured breaches a term of an insurance policy (whether it is a warranty, condition or similar) which is intended to reduce the risk of particular types of loss, the insurer cannot refuse to pay a claim if the insured shows that the breach did not increase the risk of the loss.

Remedy for fraud

The option of avoidance – treating the policy as if it had never existed – has been removed. This means that the insurer is still on risk for claims made before the fraudulent act occurred. The insurer has the option to terminate the policy with effect from the date of the fraudulent act.

Also introduced into the Act are amendments to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 so that this latter piece of legislation can finally be brought into force. This will allow third parties to bring actions directly against the insurer without first establishing the liability of the insured.

How we are embracing the Insurance Act

Fair Presentation of Risk

Whilst the Act reminds customers of the continued need to disclose material facts, the focus is on making customers and insurers aware of the different remedies available in the event of an innocent, deliberate or reckless failure to make a fair presentation of the risk. We will fully adopt these changes.

In the event of an innocent failure to make a fair presentation, where we would have issued a policy albeit at a different premium, we will proportionately reduce the amount payable for a claim’s settlement by comparing the premium that would have been charged with that actually charged. If we would have applied different terms, these will apply at settlement of the claim.

In the event that a policy would not have been issued at all, we may avoid the policy but will return the premium.

Only in the event of a reckless or deliberate failure to make a fair presentation, would we have the option of avoiding the policy and not returning the premium.

Warranties

The Act requires that warranties become suspensive conditions. We have decided it is in the customers’ best interest to go further and remove warranties from our policies.

Going forward, our policies will be warranty free. In the interim, if a policy contains a warranty it will now be treated as a condition precedent whilst we update our policy documentation.

Conditions Precedent

The 2015 Act still envisages the need to use conditions precedent to properly reduce the risk of a loss occurring for insurer and insured alike.
Whilst the Act only requires a breach of a condition precedent to increase the risk of loss before an insurer can refuse to meet a claim, we have gone beyond this requirement and will not repudiate claims where the customer can, on balance, show the breach did not actually cause or contribute to the loss.

Basis of Insurance

Basis clauses have been abolished by the Act and we are removing them from our contracts. We will not apply them in the interim.

Fraud Condition

The Act sets out the remedies available to the insurer in the event of fraud.

If the customer exaggerates, makes a fraudulent claim, or uses fraudulent documentation, we may refuse to pay the claim. We may also have the option to terminate the policy and retain the premium from the date of the fraudulent act.

How our customers benefit from these changes now

All customers* will benefit from the following changes with immediate effect:
• Warranty free policies
• Conditions precedent will only be invoked if a breach has contributed to the loss
• Basis clause removed from policies
We have distinguished between innocent, deliberate or reckless nondisclosure and clearly describe to our customers how we will deal with this.
Beyond the requirements of the Act, our customers will now benefit from warranty free policies.
We will ignore conditions precedent where our customer can, on balance, show the breach did not cause or contribute to the loss.
We are now starting to change our policy documentation. Whilst the Act does not come into force until August 2016, we intend to handle claims as if the Act applies to our existing policies. Our customers will therefore benefit from these changes immediately and we will start to issue updated policy documentation. In the meantime, the clauses we will use to apply these changes for Commercial Insurance products will shortly be made available on www.allianzebroker.co.uk.

Please click on the link to view:
https://view.publitas.com/biba/biba-manifesto-2015/page/1

Small firms urged to take steps to combat cyber crime
From:Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, Department for Culture, Media & Sport and Ed Vaizey MP

First published:22 October 2014

Part of:Keeping the UK safe in cyber space, Making it easier to set up and grow a business, Business and enterprise and National security.
Many small and medium-sized businesses ignore or underestimate the threat online fraud poses to their profitability, cashflow and reputation.
Many small and medium-sized businesses ignore or underestimate the threat online fraud poses to their profitability, cashflow and reputation, according to a panel of experts on cyber fraud.

Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, invited experts from government and industry to join a Cyber Streetwise small business round table, to create an easy to understand action plan that will help small firms combat cyber crime.

The event marked the new phase of the Cyber Streetwise campaign, which focuses on helping small business owners protect themselves against cyber threats.

The group of experts recommend that all small and medium-sized businesses should:

train staff to understand cyber threats
keep software secure by always installing updates
install and use anti-virus software
use complex passwords which include a minimum of 3 words and a symbol
Minister for the Digital Economy Ed Vaizey said:

Small businesses are driving economic growth here in the UK but remain particularly vulnerable to cyber security breaches that can result in hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage.

That is why government and industry partners are working to make the UK one of the safest places to do business online through our National Cyber Security Programme. A crucial part of this programme is building awareness of cyber threats amongst our small firms, and the Cyber Streetwise campaign is doing just that. It provides clear and easy to follow guidance to help small and medium-sized companies protect themselves from online criminal activity.

The most common problems faced by businesses include staff exposing IT systems to malware by plugging in external devices and USB sticks, opening infected emails or using unsafe websites with malicious code. Poor device passwords and out of date software also leave firms vulnerable.

To further boost their cyber security credentials firms can join the new Cyber Essentials scheme which helps businesses protect themselves against cyber threats and awards them a badge to demonstrate they meet government and industry-endorsed criteria. The Cyber Security Innovation Vouchers scheme can also help by providing up to £5,000 to invest in improved cyber security.

Research has found that 60% of small businesses suffered a malicious breach in the past year and half of them had a serious incident. The worst breaches disrupted operations for small businesses for an average of 7 to 10 days.

Emma Philpott, CEO of IASME, said:

Many businesses simply don’t realise they are at risk and assume cyber criminals are only targeting banks or large online retailers.

The reality is that all businesses are interesting to cyber criminals and if you’re online in any way, you are a target. Cyber Streetwise is a great place to get quick, bite-size, non-techy advice on keeping the cyber criminals at bay.

The panel believe small and medium-sized businesses should use improved cyber security as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage, improve customer service and boost reputations by demonstrating they have taken steps to defend against attacks. This action could have a positive impact on business growth with recent research finding that 59% of consumers are put off shopping with small firms online, and 82% would buy more if they could show they were protected from cyber crime.

More large UK and overseas companies also expect suppliers to have robust cyber security measures in place and the government now requires many suppliers to have Cyber Essentials certification. Businesses should reassure customers they are a safe supply chain partner.

John Allan, National Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), said:

Cyber crime poses a real and growing threat for small firms and it isn’t something that should be ignored. Many small businesses will be taking steps to protect themselves but many others have not recognised the increasing threat and have neither adopted technologies nor strategies to defend against cyber crime. For those that don’t, the cost of cyber crime can be a barrier for growth and in the worst cases, can put a firm out of business.

While we welcome action from the government and the wider public sector, there are clear actions that businesses can take to educate and help themselves to counteract cyber crime. The FSB would strongly encourage them to do so.

Notes to editors
1.Cyber Streetwise is a cross-government awareness and behaviour change campaign delivered by the Home Office in conjunction with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the National Crime Agency, Action Fraud and the Cabinet Office. It is funded by the government’s 5-year £860 million National Cyber Security Programme.

2.The round table, was attended by:

James Quinault – Director, Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance
Peter Wilson – Deputy Director, Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, The Home Office
Simon Kendall – Head of Private Sector Engagement, Cyber Security and Resilience, BIS
Simon Whalley – Head of External Affairs, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Richard Hyde – Policy Advisor, Federation of Small Businesses
Frank Gilbert – IT Systems Manager, Axis Electronics
Del Heppenstall – Cyber Security Practice Director, KPMG
Carla Baker – Senior Manager for Government Affairs, Symantec UK and Ireland
Stuart Aston – Chief Security Advisor, Microsoft
Emma Philpott – Founder of the UK Cyber Security Forum and CEO, IASME
James Lyne – Global Head of Security Research, Sophos
Chris Gibson – Director, CERT-UK
3.The panel encouraged business owners to take on their simple recommendations, which would make a difference to their firms’ safety online.

4.Advice and support for small firms – as well as links to free online training – can be found on Cyber Streetwise.

5.Additional quotes:

Simon Whalley, Head of External Affairs at the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:
Even businesses who don’t sell online have much to gain by being cyber secure. Making themselves more attractive as an export and supply chain partner is a very achievable growth goal which is not always open to businesses who disregard the issue of cyber security. Being a victim can severely impact a business’s bottom line, but as Cyber Streetwise demonstrates, it doesn’t need to cost the bottom line to boost your cyber security.

Frank Gilbert, Systems Administrator at Axis Electronics, said:
We’ve found that a few simple changes in cyber security practices really can have a big effect on the business – and I’d encourage others to follow suit. It’s essential that our customers have trust in us, and our ability to keep their information safe. If our systems were breached, not only would there be an immediate financial implication to resolve the issue, but our customers would lose confidence in us. That would affect the business for months and years to come.

6.The government’s Cyber Security Guide for Small Businesses is available.

7.Cyber Security Innovation Vouchers are available via the government’s innovation agency, Innovate UK (formerly the Technology Strategy Board).

8.Free online information security training for SMEs is available.

9.Cyber Essentials is a new government-backed and industry supported scheme to guide businesses in protecting themselves against cyber threats. Cyber Essentials sets out 5 key technical controls in free-to-download documents which any organisation can use. A Cyber Essentials badge to demonstrate companies meet government and industry endorsed criteria is available via an affordable assessment process.

10.More information about the Information Security Breaches Survey conducted by PwC on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and in association with Infosecurity Europe, 2014 is available from PwC’s website.

11.Research among consumers and business buyers of small and medium goods and services, performed by OnePoll (2,000 UK consumers) and Coleman Parkes Ltd (procurement managers at 150 large UK businesses with more than 500 employees) for Consolidated PR on behalf of the Home Office, December 2013.

12.The UK Cyber Security Strategy (November 2011) sets out how the UK will support economic prosperity, protect national security and safeguard the public’s way of life by building a more trusted and resilient digital environment. The National Cyber Security Programme (NCSP) within the Cabinet Office coordinates and funds work undertaken by government departments to implement the UK Cyber Security Strategy. Information on progress against the strategy and achievements of the National Cyber Security Programme can be found at Keeping the UK safe in cyber space.

Share this page
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Published:
22 October 2014
From:
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills
Department for Culture, Media & Sport
Ed Vaizey MP
Part of:
Keeping the UK safe in cyber space
Making it easier to set up and grow a business
Is there anything wrong with this page?

The Financial Conduct Authority has released their Consultation paper, Guaranteed
Asset Protection Insurance: A Competition Remedy. Part of their proposals are to limit
the point-of-sale offer of GAP insurance when product is sold by a dealer or distributor of
motor vehicles.

The FCA intends for the new rules to come into force in September 2015.
The FCA’s key proposals for motor dealers who wish to sell GAP Insurance are:-
 to provide information that will encourage customers to shop around;
 to advise customer’s that they can purchase GAP Insurance elsewhere;
 to introduce a deferred opt-in or break in the sale, whereby a dealership’s salesperson can start the sales
process but cannot conclude the sale for a defined period of time. Allowing customers time to consider
whether the product is of benefit to them and provide the opportunity to shop.

The FCA said it wants to promote competition in the £160 million guaranteed asset protection (GAP) insurance
market, including limiting the point of sale advantage for GAP sales made on the vehicle showroom floor and
making it easier for consumers to explore alternative options available to them.
GAP insurance is usually offered alongside car sales. The study found that consumers were often buying without
having previously considered the product or shopping around for alternatives, concluding were customers getting
the best deal.

Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the FCA, said: “Earlier this year we said that firms must
put consumers’ interests first. It’s important that people are able to make informed decisions about whether they
need GAP, and if they do, the best place to buy it.”

“Today’s proposed rules are intended to help consumers from paying too much for a product that may not be
offering good value for money.”

This would indicate that consumers are buying products that offer poor value for money, the monopoly that motor
dealers enjoy puts them in a very strong position. With little competition at point of sale there is no pressure on
motor dealers to reduce price.

This is in stark contrast to GAP insurance sold via an insurance broker where the FCA has confirmed:- “Where
GAP insurance is not sold as part of a motor vehicle sale, we propose that these sales should be excluded from the
new requirements. For example, if GAP insurance is sold as an add-on to motor insurance (and not sold at the
same time as the motor vehicle) then we propose this circumstance should be excluded from the scope of the
proposals”.

We are delighted to confirm that following our annual audit, the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) have confirmed renewal of our Chartered Insurance Broker status.

We remain one of only 150 Chartered firms in the UK and the CII confirm:

“Chartered titles are jealously guarded by professional bodies and are not awarded lightly. Chartered status therefore brings with it a number of serious obligations. A Chartered title is not simply recognition for staff having passed examinations.

The title Chartered Insurance Brokers is a public declaration that the advice given by your firm:

– is of the highest quality
– is based solely on the researched needs of the consumer
– is provided by someone not exceeding their level of competency”

At a gala evening at Stanley House in Mellor, Garratts walked away with the Best Social Media Presence title for 2014 and were finalists in the Best Business category.

We are delighted that our efforts and service to our clients is recognised by the wider business community and acknowledge the role played by our staff in helping our reputation continue to flourish and grow.

We are delighted to confirm that both Matt Garratt and James Grindley have successfully achieved their first professional qualifications within 12 months of entering the industry.

As part of their Apprenticeships they have both achieved the Cert CII title following 12 months intensive learning and three external examinations. Whilst their daily learning continues, this is a huge positive step in their professional careers.

Well done to them both.