Acasta European Insurance Company Limited v Eshiett & Others [2026] EWHC 71 (Comm) concerned the interpretation of a structural defects insurance policy (“the Policy”) which provided cover for an apartment block in North London (“the Block”) and the seven flats (“the Flats”) within it. The limit of the indemnity payable under the relevant part of the Policy was expressed as follows: “The maximum the Insurers will pay for all claims relating to a Residential Property is £1,000,000 or the rebuilding cost of the Residential Property, whichever is the lesser … The limit for all claims for all Residential Property’s (sic) in one continuous structure is £1,500,000.”
The freeholder of the Block (in whom three of the Flats remain vested) and the long leaseholders of four of the Flats (collectively “the Policyholders”) argued that the Policy afforded them separate cover for each Flat with an individual limit of indemnity of £1m. The insurer argued that the Policy was a single composite policy of insurance, and that because the Flats formed part of one “continuous structure” the limit of indemnity under the Policy was £1.5m (index linked).
The Court handed down judgment on 16 January 2026 in favour of the insurer, concluding that on their true interpretation the words “The limit of all claims for all Residential Property’s (sic) in one continuous structure is £1,500,000” gave rise to a single, aggregate, limit of £1.5m (index linked).
Clare and Nick were instructed by Brabners LLP.
Read the full judgment here: Acasta European Insurance Company Limited v Eshiett & Others
