Tioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc & Ors

Tioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc & Ors

The Loss Notification Option under the excess policies was not validly exercised because the fax relied upon was not sent by or on behalf of Tioxide, was not sent to underwriters as required, and did not purport to exercise the LNO under the excess policies or reference their involvement.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Tioxide Europe Ltd.; Respondent: CGU International PLC & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss Notification Option, Policy Notification Requirements, Indemnity Under Excess Policies
Insurance Law Contract Law Loss Notification Option Policy Notification Requirements Indemnity Under Excess Policies

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tioxide Europe Ltd.

Appellant

CGU International PLC & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Loss Notification Option (LNO) under the excess policies was validly exercised by Tioxide
  2. 2 Whether notification to Marsh (brokers) satisfied the requirement to notify underwriters under the LNO
  3. 3 Whether the fax of 25 January 2002 constituted valid notice under the LNO

Ratio Decidendi

The Loss Notification Option under the excess policies was not validly exercised because the fax relied upon was not sent by or on behalf of Tioxide, was not sent to underwriters as required, and did not purport to exercise the LNO under the excess policies or reference their involvement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed by confirming the judge’s answer to issue 9: the formal requirements for the LNO contained in the excess layers of the policy have not been complied with.