There may be circumstances when disclosure of a party’s insurance arrangements can be ordered by the court
In the case of XYZ v Various  EWHC 3653 (QB) — part of the PIP breast implant litigation — a group of litigants was granted an order for disclosure of a defendant’s insurance arrangements in respect of the defendant’s potential liability in the litigation.
The claimants, a group of nearly 1,000 women, seek damages from the companies operating various private hospitals that, they say, sold them defective breast implants manufactured by PIP. Certain defendants have already entered liquidation in the face of these claims.
Against that backdrop, the claimants applied for disclosure of the insurance cover held by the second defendant, Transform Medical Group, against which 670 claims have been brought, with an average value of £13,000 each. They claimed that this information was necessary to understand whether Transform had sufficient insurance to fund participation in the litigation to the end of trial and to meet any orders for damages and/or costs…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The case of Savoye and Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd serves as a reminder that the provisions of Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
2014 was all about age, says Ruth Ormston from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s combined human resource solutions team, in this article that was originally published on Thomson Reuters.