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 concluded prior to 1 August 2015 that duties had been breached. Therefore, the policy exclusion does not apply and AIG is not entitled to decline cover. The claimants are entitled to indemnity for defence costs under the policy.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 358 (QB)
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 (legal Expenses Under D&o Policy) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Directors and Officers Insurance, Attribution of Knowledge, Breach of Directors' Duties, German Law (vvg), Burden of Proof, Legal Professional Privilege
Insurance Law Company Law Contract Law Directors and Officers Insurance Attribution of Knowledge Breach of Directors' Duties German Law (vvg) Burden of Proof +1 more

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 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 (legal Expenses Under D&o Policy) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Policyholder or attributed persons had knowledge of alleged breaches of duty prior to 1 August 2015 under the D&O policy
  2. 2 Whether AIG is entitled to decline cover by reference to policy terms (clause 5.5)
  3. 3 Whether claimants are entitled to defence costs under the policy

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, neither the Policyholder nor any person whose knowledge is attributable to the Policyholder concluded prior to 1 August 2015 that duties had been breached. Therefore, the policy exclusion does not apply and AIG is not entitled to decline cover. The claimants are entitled to indemnity for defence costs under the policy.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • AIG is liable to indemnify the claimants for defence costs under the D&O policy in respect of the KeyMed claim.
  • AIG is not entitled to decline cover under clause 5.5 of the policy.