News Insurance UK Law ambiguous if client money gets lost in the crunch By The Lawyer 13 October 2008 10:15 13 December 2015 22:16 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Frank Maher, Legal Risk LLP 13 October 2008 at 12:03 Law ambiguous if client money gets lost in the crunch PI insurers (primary layer at least and most excess layers too) relying on the trading debt exclusion would have to address the fact that the word ‘Claim’ in the main insuring clause is defined in clause 8.2 of the Minimum Terms and Conditions as follows – For these purposes, an obligation on a Firm and/or any Insured to remedy a breach of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998 (as amended from time to time), or any rules which replace the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998 in whole or in part, shall be treated as a Claim, and the obligation to remedy such breach shall be treated as a civil liability for the purposes of clause 1, whether or not any person makes a demand for, or an assertion of a right to, civil compensation or civil damages or an intimation of an intention to seek such compensation or damages as a result of such breach. Reply Link Steve Holland- Lockton Professions 13 October 2008 at 16:52 Law ambiguous if client money gets lost in the crunch The “trading debt” excusion within the Minimum Terms and Conditions relates to any trading debt of the insured. I think it would be difficult for insurers to say a collapse of a bank resulting in the loss of client monies was a trading debt of the insured. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.