Conclusion on Issue 3
Conclusion on Issue 3
Equitas has not proved its pleaded allegations of failure to take proper and businesslike steps. Therefore it is fully bound by the follow settlements clause.
For the avoidance of doubt, I make clear that I have disregarded other complaints raised in evidence but not pleaded. Several such allegations were raised in the course of evidence, including failure to take a late notice defence, failure to ascertain the available insurance cover between 1917 and 1988, failure to investigate the reasons behind BOC’s purchase of the Global Excess Policies, and a flawed approach to sampling of the bodily injury claims against BOC to ascertain exposure dates. This dispute has been maturing over many years. Equitas has amended its defence three times. Disclosure was conducted on the basis of the issues as they arise from the statements of case. No application was made for a further amendment. If allegations are not set out in the re-re-amended defence, they cannot be relied on.
- Heading
- Judge Keyser KC
- Issue 1: The Defence Costs Erosion Issue
- Issue 2: The Claims Co-operation Clause Issue
- Issue 3: The Proper and Businesslike Steps Issue
- Inclusion of the limits of the Global Excess Policies was neither reasonable nor principled
- Mr Miller failed to verify the policy limits and attachment points of the Global Excess Policies
- Mr Miller failed to verify the position regarding pollution exclusions in BOC US’s primary policies post-October 1988 Mr Miller failed to verify the position regarding pollution exclusions in BOC US’s excess policies post-October 1985
- The TTSA was entered into prematurely, before opposition briefs had been filed
- Conclusion on Issue 3
- Issue 4: The Interest Issue
- Period of interest
- Compound Interest
- Conclusions
![LM-2024-000252 - [2025] EWHC 2704 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)