b'CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS|UK AND EUROPEThe High Court granted Travelers application,expiry meant (the broker understood it to mean striking out the claim and granting reverse summarythat the renewal policy contained both the TPC and judgment in the insurers favor. The key takeawaya non-avoidance clause (NAC)). The broker, here was that courts will interpret and construehowever, was liable to the bank for the value of the policy wordings, including in the BI context, inindemnities that those two insurers would otherwise accordance with their express terms.have had to pay. The insurers found to be liable, and the broker, ABN Amro Bank NV v Royal & Sunappealed the first instance decision. Alliance Insurance plc and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1789 The insurers argued that the TPC did not provide cover for credit risks, or financial defaults of the sort Late in the year, the Court of Appeal handed downwhich had occurred (regardless of whether there its judgment in ABN AMRO v RSA, a significanthad been any physical loss or damage), but rather case concerning non-fraudulent misrepresentations,that it provided a mechanism for calculating the and the circumstances in which estoppel byvalue of any indemnity in the event of physical loss convention can be relied upon.or damage. The Court of Appeal rejected the insurers argument, noting that the TPC contained The case involved a claim by the insured bank inclear and unambiguous words of coverage, not respect of an indemnity it was seekingworthsimply of a basis of valuation. over 30 million in financial losses said to have been suffered following the insolvency of twoThe brokers appeal concerned the High Courts major customers defaulted on a commoditiesfinding that the bank was estopped by convention finance dealagainst its 14 insurers and, in thefrom relying on the TPC against the two non-liable alternative (if the claim against the insurersinsurers because of the brokers at expiry failed), its insurance broker.misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal agreed with the brokers argument that there could be no At first instance, the High Court found that all butestoppel by convention based on acquiescence two of the 14 insurers were liable to indemnify thewhere the party being estopped does not know insured bank by virtue of a transaction premiumabout what it is said to be acquiescing in (which clause (TPC) in the policy, which (somewhatseemed to be the case here, given that the parties unusually for a marine cargo insurance policy of thewere at cross-purposes as to what at expiry sort in issue here) extended protection to non- meant). Ultimately this was irrelevant to the physical loss or damage. The non-liability of the twooutcome of the appeal, however, given that other insurers was based on the fact that the bank wasestoppel theoriesby representation and by estopped by convention from relying on the TPC asconventionwere also relied upon. However, the against those two insurers as a result of aCourt of Appeal allowed the brokers appeal on the misrepresentation by the broker, at renewal, thatbasis that the NAC, strictly construed, and despite the policy was as expiry, notwithstanding that thethe fact that it did not expressly preclude reliance parties were at cross-purposes as to what at 164|Global Insurance Industry Year in Review 2021'