This blog was authored by Jason Hudson, Trainee Associate.
Insurance policies can provide financial security, but only when applicants are truthful in their disclosures. In a March 2025 ruling the high court ruled against a beneficiary’s R6 million claim after the insurer proved material misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the life insured policyholder.
The court decided
Did the insured motorist collide with a pig and if so, did he intend to hit the pig or was it a reckless act?
This was the central question the Australian court resolved in considering whether there had been a breach of the reasonable precautions condition of the policy.
The reasonable precautions clause read:
“
A Missouri court dismissed an insurance claim by a drug manufacturer which had promoted the sale of opioid products because the “your products” exclusion expressly included not only “products” but also “representations” the drugmaker made about its products.
The drugmaker had promoted opioid product use and sales in general and not only its own products
A defendant who signed surety for a bank raised a number of unsuccessful defences including prescription. The bank granted the principal debtor an overdraft facility which the client failed to reduce within the credit limit as required in December 2018. Summons was issued in July 2024. The court dismissed the prescription defence because it was
In February 2025 the English High Court delivered a 202-paragraph judgment only to come to the conclusion that the lawyers professional indemnity policy covering both insured entities did not mean that the successor firm could be indemnified for the negligent performance of services by its predecessor firm.
The policy covered both the previous firm with
A policy provision capped liability at USD10 million for “direct physical loss or damage caused by heat from molten material, which has been accidentally discharged from equipment”. The court found on the facts that the words were ambiguous as to what was “direct” damage and what was “caused by heat” so that some of the losses
This blog was co-authored by Adrienne Hendricks (Trainee Associate).
An insurance company entered into a financial service agreement with the first respondent close corporation. The second respondent bound herself as surety and co-principal debtor to the insurance company through a deed of suretyship. Pursuant to the deed of suretyship, the insurance company sought payment from
An April 2024 judgment of the Federal Court of Australia decided that a subcontractor on a contract site was entitled to recover under the principal contractor’s insurance policy because it was a party “for whom the insured undertakes to insure for their respect rights, interests and liabilities”. In doing so, the court resolved conflicting provisions
The new UK Arbitration Act modernises the Arbitration Act of 1996 and will come into force on a date to be appointed.
Companies doing business or arbitrating subject to the laws of England should familiarise themselves with the key reforms in the 2025 act, which you can read about in this article from our London
In December 2024 the English high court held that a clause requiring the parties to use “reasonable endeavours” to agree a binding process for an expert determination to value and divide disputed businesses was an unenforceable agreement to agree.
The disputing parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve litigation which was ongoing at the