Insurer loses legal battle with Law Society
A Court of Appeal judgment is set to have major implications for insurers seeking access to confidential documents from solicitors that could enable them to refuse indemnity, writes Post. In Quinn Direct Insurance v The Law Society, Quinn had appealed against an earlier High Court decision to refuse the company access to confidential documents relating to a firm of solicitors that was being investigated by the Law Society. In 2007 the Law Society took possession of files and documents relating to the firm as part of a large-scale fraud investigation. Quinn had provided the firm with professional indemnity insurance and was its primary insurer.
July 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM
3 minute read
A Court of Appeal judgment is set to have major implications for insurers seeking access to confidential documents from solicitors that could enable them to refuse indemnity, writes Post.
In Quinn Direct Insurance v The Law Society, Quinn had appealed against an earlier High Court decision to refuse the company access to confidential documents relating to a firm of solicitors that was being investigated by the Law Society.
In 2007 the Law Society took possession of files and documents relating to the firm as part of a large-scale fraud investigation. Quinn had provided the firm with professional indemnity insurance and was its primary insurer.
Following news of disciplinary proceedings being brought by the Law Society against two of the solicitors at the firm, Quinn declined to provide one of the partners with an indemnity on the grounds of dishonesty as outlined in their policy.
As part of its investigation into the conduct of the other solicitor, Quinn requested access to the documents seized by the Law Society's investigation team. The request was denied and Quinn then issued a wide-ranging order against the Law Society seeking access to all the documents it had in relation to the firm.
The Law Society opposed the application on the grounds that some of the documents were confidential and privileged, and both the High Court and the Court of Appeal backed the Law Society.
Browne Jacobson partner Nichola Evans, a specialist in professional indemnity issues, commented: "This decision means that while insurers will still be able to gain access to important documents held by a firm of solicitors it is imperative that they seek sound advice from their advisers before making any such requests. Success will largely depend on the scope and reasoning behind any request and whether the documents in question are in fact subject to privilege and confidentiality."
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain professional negligence partner Nick Bird said: "If the judgment is not appealed and remains the law, then either some solicitors will have to revise their terms and conditions so that the client waives privilege for the purpose of notifying insurers, or insurance policies will have to be amended to prevent solicitors from being under any duty to disclose this material."
Post is a sister title of Legal Week.
Related briefing: Court of Appeal upholds Quinn v Law Society decision
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClaus von Wobeser: Mexico's ‘Godfather of Arbitration’ Becomes Firm’s Honorary Chair
Slaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250