The Commercial Court decision in Ahmed and Others v White & Co (UK) Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm) concerns financial advisers, not clinicians. However HHJ Pearce’s judgment on notification of circumstances and block notifications are relevant to medical malpractice litigation, particularly in group actions. 

The case in brief

White & Co advised 176 clients on tax mitigation investments. When those investments failed, the clients sued and the central question became whether White & Co had validly notified its insurer Allianz of the circumstances giving rise to the claims. Following White & Co's insolvency, the Claimants sued the insurer directly under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.

Despite three separate purported notification routes, none worked. The three failed routes are instructive in themselves:

• The 'Akbar letters': letters from a barrister concerning specific named clients and investments. The Court held that these were limited on their face to those specific claims. The fact that a reader might speculate about further claims in the pipeline was not enough. That possibility had to be 'internal in the wording' of the notification, not drawn from outside knowledge.
•  The block notification: correspondence forwarded by the broker about HMRC investigations. This was held to notify circumstances on behalf of an associated firm only. White & Co had the basis for a broader notification but failed to make one. A reasonable insurer reading the correspondence would not have understood it to extend to White & Co.
• The 'Kennedys documents': correspondence passed by jointly instructed (for insurer and insured) defence solicitors to the insurer. The Court held that the solicitors, acting under a joint retainer, were not White & Co's agent for notification purposes. Treating such communications as notifications would risk putting joint solicitors in conflict between their two clients.

Block notifications

A circumstances notification clause allows an insured to notify the insurer of a systemic problem during the current policy period, capturing all future arising claims within that year even where individual Claimants are not yet identified. This is the 'hornet's nest' or block notification. 

Clauses referring to circumstances that 'may' give rise to claims set a deliberately low threshold. An insured need not identify every potential Claimant, nor have a complete picture of the problem. However four conditions must be met:

1. The insured must have actual awareness of the circumstances, not mere speculation.
2. The notification must be expressly and clearly communicated to the insurer.
3. There must be a genuine causal link between the notified circumstances and later claims.
4. The notification must be sufficiently specific about the nature of the problem and the potential class of Claimants.

Why this is relevant to medical malpractice group actions

The majority of medical malpractice policies operate on a claims made basis and block notification is critical to capturing all future arising claims within that year even where individual claimants are not yet identified.

It is common in clinical negligence for a single firm to act for both insured and insurer. Ahmed makes clear that information passed through those solicitors, however detailed, will not constitute notification by the insured. The insured must act independently and directly.

Aggregation

Even if a block notification fails, an aggregation clause may still concentrate multiple claims into a single limit. Equally, successful notification does not guarantee aggregation. 

The word 'same' in a related claims definition significantly limits its scope: mere similarity between claims is not enough, as the Court found when it declined to aggregate all claim categories in Ahmed.

Medical malpractice insurers should review both clauses together when a group action looms. Does the aggregation clause capture claims arising from a single practitioner's conduct over an extended period, or only a specific act or omission? Does it extend to systemic institutional failure? 

Practical recommendations

For insureds and brokers

• Any identified pattern of harm such as internal audit findings, a whistleblower, a coroner's Inquest, a cluster of complaints should trigger consideration of a block notification, even before a formal claim arrives.
• Notify in writing, directly to the insurer contact named in the policy schedule, expressly stating that this is a notification of circumstances under the policy.
• Identify the potential class of claimants and basis of claims as specifically as the available information allows, but do not wait for the full picture.
• Do not rely on joint defence solicitors or informal broker communications to notify on your behalf.

For insurers

• Review notification of circumstances provisions for clarity. 
• Engage with insureds about notification obligations early.
• Acknowledge block notifications promptly in writing and confirm or query their scope.
• When appointing joint defence solicitors, make explicit that information sharing is not the same as formal notification.
• Review aggregation clause wording with the group action scenario in mind. For example does it clearly address claims arising from a single practitioner over an extended period, or from a systemic institutional failure?