Jamie Smith QC
Insurance & Reinsurance
Jamie’s first exposure to insurance issues arose as part of his professional liability work. Insurance has since grown to become a key area of Jamie’s practice and one in which he is both deeply interested and deeply committed: in Court, in arbitration, as an arbitrator and in delivering talks and seminars. Jamie is now seen as an experienced practitioner in this field and was Counsel in the ground-breaking Supreme Court case of IEGL v. Zurich case, exploring coverage issues in the EL field.
On the professional indemnity side, Jamie has very extensive experience of market policies. He has a particular specialism in the Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTCs), as applying to primary layer solicitors’ policies. He is regularly appointed to arbitrate issues arising under the MTCs.
The wide incidence of mortgage fraud has led market insurers to pay close attention to aggregation and dishonesty clauses in their policies and Jamie has repeatedly been engaged to advise on these matters. This includes:
- Dishonesty conferences
- Notification issues (particularly Rothschild ‘blanket’ notifications)
- Arbitrations where the market insurer is seeking a declaration that it is entitled to rely on the dishonesty exception in the MTCs
Away from the professional indemnity insurance arena, Jamie advises on a very wide range of topics, from warranties in domestic household policies to exotic ‘prize’ insurance in the on-line gaming industry. As to the latter, Jamie acted for MyLotto24 in its €24m dispute with Great Lakes following a jackpot win by one of its customers.
Jamie also has extensive D&O experience. He recently advised on notification issues in respect of a captive D&O reinsurance programme and he has been involved in coverage disputes following the Meinl Bank litigation, and the Topland affair. Jamie’s disciplinary work has also led to coverage disputes, particularly on the scope of cover side in FCA investigations.
Examples of Jamie’s practice include:
- Interpretation of permanent health insurance and critical illness cover: Haghiran v. Allied Dunbar  All ER (Comm) 97 (CA)
- Consideration of the merit of ‘fraudulent claims and devices’ defence in the context of domestic contents policy
- Fine art insurance
- ATE Insurance (and attendant claims to the FOS)
- Fire claims: Sugar Hut v. Great Lakes Insurance  Lloyd’s Rep IR (Burton J)