Law ambiguous if client money gets lost in the crunch

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)