The CJC is conducting an important review of all Pre-Action Protocols and has asked for market participants to complete an on-line questionnaire by Friday 18th December 2020:

https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/civil-justice-council-launches-review-of-pre-action-protocols

As a specialist coverage lawyer, the one thing I have always found odd about the PAP rules is the peculiar absence of a specific protocol for insurance coverage disputes given the scale of the market, the fundamental role which insurance plays in our society and the number of disputed claims.

But what is the case for and against developing a specific PAP for insurance coverage disputes?

For me, there is strong case for the CJC to be engaging with the insurance market to consider a specific protocol for insurance coverage disputes that reflects the nuances of the market including the broker’s role; reduces the time it takes for underwriters to reasonably respond; enhances both parties disclosure obligations; and encourages (or compels?) the parties to use early neutral evaluation by a suitably qualified third party.

Thoughts?

Dan Brooks is a Partner at Wynterhill.

Noted as a “Next Generation Partner” (Legal 500) and ranked as leading individual for policyholder work in the UK (Chambers and Partners). Genuinely passionate about insurance law, the London Market and the policyholder community. He resolves complex coverage disputes across a broad spectrum of sectors and product lines, including professional indemnity, financial risks, construction and property.

This post is intended to provide guidance of a practical nature but does not contain legal advice or advice as to what action you should or should not take specific to your insurance needs or those of your business, or with regard to any particular situation.