Report comment

I have absolutely no love for insurers; motor, home, professional indemnity or otherwise. I understand why they are needed in the system we have, however. I also do not think it unreasonable that an insurer be paid a premium if it is to insure a risk, particularly if that risk is one which could result in it paying out substantial sums. In other words, if insurers are going to be asked to pay out in these scenarios, there should a specific policy in place,. This can be couched in the language of breach of trust or professional indemnity all you like but the fact is, the insurer here is being asked to pick up something akin to a proceeds of crime tab.

More generally, I am struggling with the following points:

a) a solicitor be found at fault despite not being at fault; or that

b) a solicitor be obliged to insure against risk; or that

c) an insurer could be required to pay out for a risk never in the reasonable comprehension of the parties at the time the policy was incepted.

I am trying to think of an analogous situation in the insurance context. A home insurer being told it can pay out for the consequences of a its policyholder conducting fraudulent business in the insured premises?

Who knows.