“Original cause” – Aggregation clauses in insurance contracts – Spire Healthcare v Royal & Sun Alliance [2022] EWCA Civ 17
A recent Court of Appeal judgment has provided some useful and much-needed clarity on the interpretation and application of aggregation clauses in insurance contracts.
A recent Court of Appeal judgment has provided some useful and much-needed clarity on the interpretation and application of aggregation clauses in insurance contracts.
The facts
A consultant surgeon at Spire Healthcare Ltd (Spire), was convicted of multiple offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
For a period of around 14 years, the consultant performed sub-total mastectomies (STMs) on patients where total mastectomy was required, and falsely reported pathology test results as indicative of the risk of or presence of cancer. The former had no adequate explanation and the latter was undertaken for financial gain. Unsurprisingly the consultant’s conduct was found to be both negligent and dishonest. He was sentenced to 20 years’ in prison in criminal proceedings.
Around 750 former patients made claims against the consultant and Spire, which were settled later that year with Spire contributing around £27 million to the compensation fund.
Spire sought an indemnity under its combined liability insurance (Policy), underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA). The Policy was subject to a limit of indemnity of £10 million for claims arising from the same “original cause”, with an aggregate overall limit of £20 million. The aggregation clause in full stated:
“The total amount payable by [the Insurer] in respect of all damages, costs and expenses arising out of all claims during any Period of Insurance consequent on or attributable to one source or original cause irrespective of the number of Persons Entitled to Indemnity having a claim under the Policy consequent on or attributable to that one source or original cause shall not exceed the Limit of Indemnity stated in the Schedule.”
RSA accepted that whilst it was liable to provide an indemnity, liability should be capped at £10 million as the claims arose from the same original cause. Spire challenged that decision.
The first instance decision
In the first instance decision, the Judge found there were two types of misconduct; those patients who had undergone STMs were classified as Group 1 and those patients who had undergone needless surgery, Group 2.
The Judge explained that the unifying factor for the purposes of the aggregation clause was not the consultant’s misconduct and dishonesty, as this was too vague and remote. Rather, the Court held that each of the groups of claims were subject to a common cause and that the aggregation clause therefore applied within each group, but not between them.
RSA appealed.
The appeal
The Court granted RSA’s appeal unanimously, explaining that the first judge had failed to conduct a wide enough search for a unifying factor in the history of the claims. In reaching that finding, the Court quoted a helpful extract from Axa Reinsurance UK Ltd v Field [1996] WLR 1026:
"In ordinary speech, an event is something which happens at a particular time, at a particular place, in a particular way… A cause is to my mind something altogether less constricted. It can be a continuing state of affairs; it can be the absence of something happening. Equally, the word "originating" was in my view consciously chosen to open up the widest possible search for a unifying factor in the history of the losses which it is sought to aggregate."
Contrary to the view taken in the first instance, the Court of Appeal held that the consultant’s conduct did amount to “one source or original cause” and that it was wrong to draw a distinction between the patients. However, the Judge made clear that this decision was based on the specific facts and that:
“There may be cases in which, on the facts, the behaviour of one individual will be too remote or too vague a concept to provide a meaningful explanation for the claims, but this is not one of them.”
Conclusion
This case usefully highlights the breadth of the word ‘cause’ when considering aggregation under policy wordings. However, it is essential to remember that different series clauses use different language, and those subtle differences can give rise to different results.
Contact

Tim Johnson
Partner
tim.johnson@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6557
You may be interested in...
In Person Event - Health and Care Connect
Health and Care Connect: East Midlands Care Breakfast with Virgin Money
Legal Update
Retirement housing: A solution to our care and housing crises?
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Online Event
Mock Inquest Training Sessions
Press Release
Law firm launches new Health and Care Connect forum for the independent health and care sector
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: PSIRF and what it means for Independent Providers
Legal Update - Procurement reform
Automatic suspension and procurement law
Opinion
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
Legal Update
Product distribution – how to protect yourself from an early exit
Legal Update
Claims against solicitors and the 'no-negligence world'
Legal Update - Procurement reform
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Guide - Procurement reform
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
On-Demand
Future of Care - Retirement Living webinar
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
On-Demand
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) in the context of retirement living
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
Legal Update
Official statistics demonstrate a new wave of age discrimination claims
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
Insights from the Chief Coroner by His Honour Judge Thomas Teague, KC
On-Demand
Leadership and lessons learnt during the Pandemic by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam
Legal Update
‘You get what you pay for’ – the meaning of ‘professional services’ in D&C policies
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Guide
Highlights from the Health and Care Connect Conference
Opinion - Procurement reform
Procurement Bill - what’s new in 2022?
Legal Update
A new approach to PI insurance for Germany lawyers
Legal Update - Procurement reform
Pre procurement planning the importance of early market engagement
On-Demand - Procurement reform
Get ready for reform: The new Procurement Bill
Legal Update - Procurement reform
The Procurement Bill - selection, exclusion, conflict of interests and debarment
Opinion - Maternity services
The impact of COVID-19 on maternal deaths
HSIB published its report on Maternal deaths during the first wave of COVID-19. The report takes a closer look at the impact that COVID-19 had during the initial period of March to May 2020.
Legal Update - Procurement reform
Public procurement: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même choses
Legal Update - Maternity services
The Ockenden Final Report – a blueprint for safe maternity care from ward to Board
The much anticipated final Ockenden report was published on 30 March 2020. The final report sets out the findings of the review into care provided to 1,486 families, and sets out a blueprint for safe maternity care.
On-Demand - Procurement reform
Procurement Bill - key changes and how will it affect you?
On-Demand
Commissioning Health Tech in an ICS World
We invite you to watch our on-demand webinar which looks into how healthtech is commissioned from a health and tech perspective.
Legal Update
Covid 19 public inquiry
The start of the public inquiry into Covid-19 in the UK has moved one step closer with the appointment on December 17 2021 of Baroness Heather Hallett to chair the inquiry. The inquiry was announced in May last year and is due to start in the spring of 2022.
Legal Update
Deal activity and market update in health and social care sector
In the last nine months of 2021 we saw a huge amount of activity across all sub-sectors of health and social care.
Legal Update
Building Blocks: health and care buildings in 2022
Expectations are understandably high whilst waiting for any Chancellor to announce their budget.
Legal Update
“Original cause” – Aggregation clauses in insurance contracts – Spire Healthcare v Royal & Sun Alliance [2022] EWCA Civ 17
A recent Court of Appeal judgment has provided some useful and much-needed clarity on the interpretation and application of aggregation clauses in insurance contracts.
On-Demand
ICS Development
This one-hour webinar includes an overview of new legislation in a developing ICS, as well as the key features for developing integrated care partnerships, how local authorities can work collaboratively with health organisations, and how ICS structures can be developed to support key system priorities.