A broker negligence claim worth nearly £2.74 million will proceed to trial after a High Court judge rejected attempts to strike it out.
Henderson & Jones Limited, a firm that purchases legal disputes from insolvent estates, is taking on Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited over what it says was a failure to deliver on a simple instruction: secure coverage that matched what the client already had.
The case traces back to the final hours of 2017. On New Year's Eve, a fire broke out at Liverpool's Echo Arena. Firefighters commandeered two nearby apartment blocks as a staging ground, knocking out windows and breaking down doors in the process. Dozens of serviced apartments were left unusable.
When the property owners turned to their insurer, NIG, for loss of rent, they were refused. A settlement eventually came through in February 2020, totalling £6.3 million across multiple claims, but only £150,000 was attributed to lost rental income. The policy had a £2.6 million indemnity limit for such losses.
The apartment owners had previously been insured by Travelers Insurance Company. When that arrangement ended in August 2016, they instructed Tysers to find a replacement on a "like for like basis." The broker placed cover with NIG.
Here lies the crux of the dispute. The claimant argues the Travelers policy offered an open-ended indemnity period for rental losses, while the NIG policy capped it at 36 months. Had Tysers truly delivered equivalent coverage, the argument goes, recovery could have stretched over 69 months for some units and 67 months for others. The maths behind the claim is straightforward: £750 per flat, per month, across 56 apartments, minus what was already recovered.
Tysers pushed back hard. The broker argued the assignment of claims to Henderson & Jones was champertous and contrary to public policy. It also pointed to a limitation clause in its Client Service Agreement, which excludes liability for "loss of revenue, loss of opportunity, loss of profits, loss of anticipated savings or any other indirect or consequential loss."
His Honour Judge Bird was unconvinced by the strike-out bid. On the assignment point, he found the claimant had sufficient legitimate interest and that the transaction did not tend towards the corruption of public justice. On the limitation clause, he said its precise scope is a matter for trial, noting it is "at the very least strongly arguable" that the claimed losses are primary, not consequential.
The proceedings were originally filed on 11 October 2023. Following the ruling handed down on 29 January 2026, the case will now move toward a full hearing on the merits.
For brokers, this one bears watching. At its heart sits a question that surfaces with uncomfortable regularity: what does "like for like" actually mean, and who bears the risk when the answer is contested?
