Woodford v AIG Europe Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 358 (QB) (02 March 2018)

Woodford v AIG Europe Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 358 (QB) (02 March 2018)

On the evidence, neither the Policyholder nor any person whose knowledge is attributable to the Policyholder had concluded prior to 1 August 2015 that duties had been breached. Therefore, the KeyMed claim falls within the scope of cover under the Policy. AIG is not entitled to decline cover by reference to clause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 358
Parties
Claimant: Michael Woodford MBE; Claimant: Paul Hillman; Defendant: AIG Europe Limited; Defendant: KeyMed (Medical and Industrial Equipment) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Directors and Officers Insurance, Breach of Directors' Duties, Knowledge Attribution, Policy Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Insurance Law Company Law German Law Directors and Officers Insurance Breach of Directors' Duties Knowledge Attribution Policy Interpretation Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Woodford MBE

Claimant

Paul Hillman

Claimant

AIG Europe Limited

Defendant

KeyMed (Medical and Industrial Equipment) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Policyholder or any person whose knowledge is attributable to the Policyholder have knowledge of the alleged breaches of duty prior to 1 August 2015?
  2. 2 Is AIG entitled to decline cover by reference to clause 5.5 of the Policy?
  3. 3 If AIG is not entitled to decline cover, to what sum are the claimants entitled by way of defence costs incurred to date?

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, neither the Policyholder nor any person whose knowledge is attributable to the Policyholder had concluded prior to 1 August 2015 that duties had been breached. Therefore, the KeyMed claim falls within the scope of cover under the Policy. AIG is not entitled to decline cover by reference to clause 5.5, as the Policyholder's refusal to answer questions was not malicious and did not causally affect the insurer's liability.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • AIG must indemnify the claimants for defence costs incurred to date under the Policy.
  • Further quantum to be determined if not agreed.