header-logo header-logo

Cutting out the middleman

10 June 2016 / Cathrine Grubb
Issue: 7702 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
nlj_7702_grubb

Cathrine Grubb examines the impact of the coming into force of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010

Since the coming into force of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (TP(RAI)A 1930), those who have suffered loss at the hands of an insured person who becomes bankrupt/insolvent have been able to enforce their rights against the insurer. However, a potential third party claimant is unable to enforce such rights until first establishing liability against the insured. Generally, this would mean issuing proceedings against the insured, which in the case of a dissolved company would also require an application to restore it to the Companies Register under s 1029 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).

The only current exception to the inability to sue the insurer directly, are claims brought under para 2 of the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/3061). Paragraph 2 applies to most cases arising out of a road traffic accident on a public road in the UK, for which there is a relevant insurance

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
back-to-top-scroll