b'CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS|UK AND EUROPEagainst prospective insureds should result in thecertificate relating to anything to be done or insurer declining to offer cover.complied with by the insured is a condition to The key takeaways here are the crucial importanceany liability of the company; and the second of compliance with the duty of fair presentation(Condition 3) stated that the insured shall, as under the Insurance Act 2015 (as well as thesoon as reasonably practicablegive written continued relevance of pre-Insurance Act case lawnotice to the company of any circumstances that on issues of materiality) and, from commercialmay give rise to a claim being made against the insurers perspective, the importance of recording,insured and for which there may be liability clearly, underwriting principles and guidelines.under this certificate. The Court addressed three questions. The first was Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd v Philipwhether there was in fact an obligation in the McCullough [2021] EWHC 2798 (Comm) insurance policy to notify in the present case; the Court concluded that there was, on the basis that, In Arch v Philip McCullough, the Courtsobjectively, the nature of the accident was such that considered certain notification obligations in thethere was a realas opposed to a merely fancifulcontext of a combined liability policy, and therisk of a claim being made, and the obligation concept of conditions precedent to liability.under Condition 3 was triggered. The second was The case, which concerned a claim against anwhether the notification made 11 months after insured for damages for personal injury followingthe accidentwas made as soon as reasonably a tragically serious accident at the insureds racepracticable in compliance with Condition 3; the track. The insured received a letter of claim Court concluded that it was not. The third was alleging that the race track was in a dangerouswhether the notification provision constituted a conditionto which the insured did not respond.condition precedent to the insurers liability under Nor did he respond to two subsequent lettersthe policy by virtue of Condition 1. Despite the fact from the victims lawyers. Proceedings werethat the provision was identified merely as a issued against the insured some three monthscondition (and not as a condition precedent), after the letter of claim (and 11 months after thethe Court concluded that it satisfied the test for, accident), following receipt of which the insuredand therefore was in fact, a condition precedent, on notified the insurer. The insurer sought athe basis that (i) it stipulated a conditionality declaration that it was not liable under the policybetween the notification obligation and liability on the basis that the insured had breached theunder the policy; (ii) that conditionality had a clear, policys notification obligation, which was aworkable, ambit; and (iii) there was a clear condition precedent to liability under the policy.commercial purpose to the clause. The insurance policy contained two conditionsThe key takeaways from this case are the Courts which were of relevance: the first (Condition 1)willingness to construe policy obligations as stated that Observance of the terms of thisconditions precedent to liability, even if not 166|Global Insurance Industry Year in Review 2021'