AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP & Ors

AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP & Ors

Although the underlying claims arose from similar acts or omissions, they did not arise from acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions because the individual transactions were not conditional or dependent upon each other. Therefore, the claims are not to be aggregated as one claim under clause 2.5 of the MTC.

Parties
Claimant: AIG Europe Limited; First Defendant: OC320301 LLP (formerly The International Law Partnership LLP); Second Defendant: Stephen John Howell; Third Defendant: Janine Elspeth Howell; Fourth Defendant: Peter Gerard Jason Esders; Fifth Defendant: Richard Marcus Woodman; Sixth Defendant: Royds Trustee Company Limited (as trustees of the Howell Peninsula Protection Trust and the Midas Marrakech Trust and as representatives of the Beneficiaries)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Declaratory Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for declaration refused
Legal Topics
Aggregation Clauses, Solicitors' Professional Indemnity Insurance, Policy Construction
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Aggregation Clauses Solicitors' Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AIG Europe Limited

Claimant

OC320301 LLP (formerly The International Law Partnership LLP)

First Defendant

Stephen John Howell

Second Defendant

Janine Elspeth Howell

Third Defendant

Peter Gerard Jason Esders

Fourth Defendant

Richard Marcus Woodman

Fifth Defendant

Royds Trustee Company Limited (as trustees of the Howell Peninsula Protection Trust and the Midas Marrakech Trust and as representatives of the Beneficiaries)

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Declaratory Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether underlying claims against solicitors are to be aggregated as one claim under clause 2.5 of the Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTC) for solicitors' professional indemnity insurance
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'similar acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions' in the context of the MTC

Ratio Decidendi

Although the underlying claims arose from similar acts or omissions, they did not arise from acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions because the individual transactions were not conditional or dependent upon each other. Therefore, the claims are not to be aggregated as one claim under clause 2.5 of the MTC.

Court Disposition

Claim for declaration refused

Orders

  • AIG's application for a declaration that the underlying claims are to be aggregated as one claim is refused.