Download The Key - Winter 2012 (PDF, 468KB) - Kennedys

More documents

Recommendations

Info

on the types of loss that are covered by insurance (such as liability for defects and product liability). Unfortunately, the usual Danish standard terms and conditions do not provide such a fair balance, and the risk problems of most companies are not solved by using industrial standard terms. We hope that this brief article has given the reader a helpful introduction to the risk management problems for insured companies in Denmark. If you have questions or comments, please contact Erritzøe partners Morten Erritzøe Christensen (mec@adve.dk) or Allan Kvist-Kristensen (akk@adve.dk). Building and machinery In the building industry, the general conditions for the provision of works and supplies in the building and engineering sectors (AB92) do not waive indirect loss due to product liability damage. If after delivery a contractor’s products or services damage third-party property (for example, a supplied defective heating plant sets fire to a manufacturing building), the injured party may claim damages from the contractor for the operational loss stemming from the damaged manufacturing building. If the injured party’s building insurer covers operational loss, then it will also be able to claim damages from the contractor, even though the contractor does not have insurance coverage for such loss. In the machinery industry, the Nordic general conditions for the provision of works and supplies in the building and engineering sectors (NL92) limit the supplier’s liability for defects to the invoiced value of the defective product plus 15 %, and the supplier’s product liability is almost completely waived. Consequently, the supplier does not have insurance coverage if, despite using NL92, it wishes to accept liability in respect of its most important customers. Author Erritzøe Law Firm Kennedys associate office 4
Why D&O insurance matters Two recent headline cases underline the value of directors and officers liability insurance. It would be interesting to see who would finish where in a popularity league table that included Preston North End football club chairman Peter Ridsdale and the directors of Farepak. However, the last few weeks have seen a clear division in their fate following director disqualification proceedings. The case of Peter Ridsdale Mr Ridsdale is perhaps best known for his role at Leeds United FC during their rise and subsequent downfall in the early 2000s. He has now given an undertaking barring him from acting as a company director – and from managing or in any way controlling a company – for seven and a half years. The ban relates to his conduct as a director of WH Sports Group Ltd (WHSG), a company that Mr Ridsdale used to provide sports and leisure consultancy services to football clubs. The undertaking has the same effect as a disqualification order made by a court and is therefore legally binding. In signing it, Mr Ridsdale did not dispute the following facts: • Between May 2007 and March 2009, he acted improperly and in breach of his duties to WHSG by channelling £347,000 into his 5
Page 1 and 2: The Key Winter 2012 Arbitrating in
Page 3: Managing risk in Denmark A look at
Page 7 and 8: Taking a consistent approach The EU
Page 9 and 10: A useful purpose English judges hav
Page 11 and 12: Developments for the Dubai & Hong K

Download The Key - Winter 2012 (PDF, 468KB) - Kennedys

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?