Infinity Reliance Limited v Heath Crawford Limited

Infinity Reliance Limited v Heath Crawford Limited

Heath Crawford breached its duty of care by providing misleading guidance on calculating the sum insured, failing to recommend declaration linked cover, and failing to explore additional cover for fit-out costs. These breaches caused Infinity to be underinsured, resulting in a reduced BI claim payout. However,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Infinity Reliance Limited (trading as My 1st Years); Defendant: Heath Crawford Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Brokers' Duty of Care, Business Interruption Insurance, Calculation of Gross Profit, Declaration Linked Cover, Contributory Negligence
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Brokers' Duty of Care Business Interruption Insurance Calculation of Gross Profit Declaration Linked Cover Contributory Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infinity Reliance Limited (trading as My 1st Years)

Claimant

Heath Crawford Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Heath Crawford breach its duty of care as insurance broker to Infinity Reliance Limited?
  2. 2 Was Infinity Reliance Limited contributorily negligent in calculating the sum insured?
  3. 3 Did the breaches cause Infinity's loss and to what extent should damages be reduced?

Ratio Decidendi

Heath Crawford breached its duty of care by providing misleading guidance on calculating the sum insured, failing to recommend declaration linked cover, and failing to explore additional cover for fit-out costs. These breaches caused Infinity to be underinsured, resulting in a reduced BI claim payout. However, Infinity was also contributorily negligent in failing to apply even the flawed guidance correctly. Damages are reduced by 20% for contributory negligence, resulting in an award of £2,336,842.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant for £2,336,842 after 20% reduction for contributory negligence.
  • Order to be made in terms agreed by the parties following circulation of the draft judgment.