Chubb European Group SE [Formerly Ace European] v Perrigo Company Plc
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr Justice Holland |
Judgment Date | 19 July 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 444 |
Court | High Court |
Docket Number | Record No. 2021/3571P |
and
and
[2022] IEHC 444
Record No. 2021/3571P
THE HIGH COURT
COMMERCIAL
Discovery – Insurance policies – Indemnity – Defendant seeking discovery of documents – Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary
Facts: The plaintiff insurers declined indemnity in respect of certain claims made by the defendants on certain Directors’ & Officers’ Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance policies (the Policies) and on foot of claims made against the defendants by third parties. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the claims were not covered by the Policies or, if covered, were covered by the 2014 Policy only. The defendants counterclaimed that all the claims were covered by one or more of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Policies. The first defendant, Perrigo Company Plc (Perrigo), applied to the High Court seeking discovery from all plaintiffs of all documents relating to the interpretation of the Policies, the declining of indemnity and the attribution of any rights of indemnity to the 2014 Policy only.
Held by Holland J that, regarding categories 1-3, he would grant discovery limited to documents which evidence or record the understanding of participants in the market in Directors’ & Officers’ Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance policies and like policies at the time each Policy was written of the concept of Securities Law as used in such policies. Regarding categories 11-16, he held that he would grant discovery limited to documents which evidence or record facts relevant to coverage decisions in respect of the Perrigo Claims with reference to the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Policies, such facts to include: facts relevant to the interpretation of the Policies; and facts relevant to the categorisation of the claims made on the Policies and their relationships to the claims made in the Mylan Counterclaim and/or to the Specific Matters identified in the Specific Matters Exclusion endorsement to the 2016 Policy. Regarding categories 18 and 19, he held that he would grant discovery limited to documents relevant to: facts known or available to both the plaintiffs and the defendants when each policy was made; and the state of the market in Directors’ & Officers’ Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance policies and like policies at the time each Policy was written and as the state of such market was generally known to participants in that market. Regarding category 21, he held that he would grant discovery limited to documents relevant to the state of the market in Directors’ & Officers’ Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance policies and like policies at the time each Policy was written and as the state of such market was generally known to participants in that market.
Holland J invited the parties to liaise as to the drafting of the intended order as to discovery.
Discovery ordered.
JUDGMENT OFMr Justice HollandDELIVERED THE 19 TH OF JULY 2022
Judgment of Mr Justice Holland delivered the 19 th of JULY 2022 | 2 | |
Introduction and Background | 4 | |
Mylan Counterclaim | 6 | |
Omega Counterclaim | 8 | |
29 Securities Actions — including Roofers 1 & 2 and Carmignac | 9 | |
Claims Made Policies, Aggregation | 10 | |
Reed Smith letter & Kennedy's Reply to Reed Smith | 11 | |
Shareholder Demand Letter & Perrigo Derivative Complaint/Claim | 13 | |
“Perrigo Claims” & “Contested Claims” | 14 | |
2017 & 2018 Policies | 14 | |
Interpretation, Factual Matrix & Discovery — Initial Observation | 14 | |
The Pleadings & the Policies | 15 | |
Statement of Claim & Particulars | 15 | |
The Reliefs Claimed | 15 | |
Omega Counterclaim & Perrigo Derivative Complaint not Securities Claims | 16 | |
2014 Policy Condition 5.1(iii) — Limit of Liability | 18 | |
2015 to 2018 Policies §4.3 — Prior Notice Exclusion | 18 | |
2016 to 2018 Policies §5.2 — Single Claim Provision | 18 | |
2016 to 2018 Policies — Specific Matters Exclusion Endorsement | 19 | |
Coverage Position Correspondence | 20 | |
Particulars of Wrongful Acts/Misrepresentations & Relationships Between Them | 20 | |
Perrigo's Amended Defence & Counterclaim & Particulars thereof | 22 | |
Notice for Particulars of Perrigo's Defence & Counterclaim & Reply thereto | 24 | |
Other Pleadings | 25 | |
The Discovery Sought, Offered & ResIsted | 25 | |
Categories 1 – 5: The Omega Counterclaim | 25 | |
Categories 6 – 10: The Perrigo Derivative Complaint | 25 | |
Categories 1 – 10 — Reasons | 26 | |
Categories 11 – 16: The Perrigo Claims | 26 | |
Categories 11 – 16 — Reasons | 27 | |
Categories 17 – 21: The Policy Documents, Underwriting Files, and Guidelines Applicable to the Policies and Claims 28 | Categories 17 – 21 — Reasons | 29 |
Affidavit of Julie Murphy O'Connor | 29 | |
Affidavit of Andrew McGahey | 32 | |
Discovery by Perrigo to the Plaintiffs | 35 | |
Law on Discovery | 37 | |
The Purpose and Importance of Discovery | 38 | |
The Broad Principles | 39 | |
Relevance to the Issues Pleaded — Admissibility not the Criterion | 43 | |
Standard of Proof of Relevance | 46 | |
Necessity | 48 | |
Proportionality & Burden | 48 | |
Tensions between Principles and Imperfectly Informed Judgment | 50 | |
Documents “relating to” — Documents which “evidence or record” | 51 | |
Reformulation of Categories | 52 | |
Law on Discovery — Mythen | 53 | |
Principles of Interpretation of Insurance Policies | 58 | |
Submissions | 63 | |
Perrigo's Submissions | 64 | |
Plaintiffs' Submissions | 65 | |
Analysis | 69 | |
The 2017 & 2018 Policies | 69 | |
Proportionality & Burden | 70 | |
Discovery for purposes of Interpretation of Contracts | 71 | |
Hyper Trust Illustrative as to relevance of Documents & Law Society v MIBI | 74 | |
Marketing and Explanatory Materials | 77 | |
Discovery for purposes of Interpretation Contra-Proferentem | 78 | |
The Basis on which the Coverage Decisions May be Challenged at Trial. | 79 | |
Whether Claims are Securities Claims? — The Omega Counterclaim & the Perrigo Derivative Complaint | 81 | |
Omega Counterclaim — Securities Law | 81 | |
Perrigo Derivative Claim | 82 | |
Reserves & Claims Handing Guidelines | 83 | |
Hyper Trust Illustrative as to Admissibility of Expert Evidence | 84 | |
CONCLUSION | 85 |
This judgment concerns a discovery application by the First Defendant, (“Perrigo”) against all Plaintiffs in a complex claim as to insurance coverage. Perrigo is a public limited company and, simplifying somewhat, a manufacturer of generic and over-the-counter drugs. It is the policyholder under a series of 5 Directors' & Officers' Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance policies named, by reference to commencement date, for each of the years 2014 to 2018 inclusive 1 (“the Policies”). I will use the commencement dates to describe the policies accordingly but such description is a little misleading in that each policy started in mid-December and so, in much the greater part, covers the following year.
Under each Policy the Defendants other than Perrigo (“the other Defendants”) are insured persons 2. The other Defendants have been directors and officers of Perrigo. Again simplifying and as the title to the Policies intimates, their general purpose is to indemnify Perrigo and the other Defendants in respect of certain types of legal actions taken against them by third parties asserting wrongs in the management and governance of Perrigo. The other Defendants are separately represented and did not participate in the motion. Perrigo is also an insured person but only as to certain “Securities Claims” alleging “Wrongful Acts” against Perrigo 3.
The Plaintiffs are the insurers potentially liable on the Policies. Though nothing turns on it for present purposes, it bears noting that the First Plaintiff – Chubb — was the lead underwriter and subscribed to 100% of the primary layer of insurance under each policy, with the remaining Plaintiffs subscribing for various excess layers in varying percentages 4.
The Plaintiffs have declined indemnity in respect of certain claims made by the Defendants on certain of the Policies and on foot of about 30 claims (including a class action) made against the Defendants by third parties in 2015 and succeeding years. The Plaintiffs in these proceedings in essence seek declarations that the claims are not covered by the Policies or, if covered, are covered by the 2014 Policy only. They sent 31 “Declinature”/“Coverage Position” letters to the Defendants setting out their positions to that effect. The Defendants counterclaim to the contrary – that all the claims are covered by one or more of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Policies. Depending on how the claims are distributed to the various Policies, it seems that about €125 million is at stake in the proceedings.
I will later list the categories of discovery sought but very broadly, Perrigo seeks, and the Plaintiffs resist, discovery from all Plaintiffs of all documents relating to the interpretation of the Policies, the declining of indemnity and the attribution of any rights of indemnity to the 2014 Policy only. The protagonists made written and...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Marshall and Others v Electricity Supply Board and Others
...but inexhaustively, refer to one or two cases only. See also Chubb European Group SE [Formerly Ace European] v. Perrigo Company Plc [2022] IEHC 444 and cases cited 34 ( R v Secretary of State for Health ex p London Borough Council Unreported, Court of Appeal 29 July 1994, cited in, inter al......
-
Wegner v Murphy
...UA v National Treasury Management Agency [2015] IECA 246. 9 Chubb European Group SE [Formerly Ace European] v. Perrigo Company Plc [2022] IEHC 444 (High Court (General), Holland J, 19 July 2022) 10 O'Brien v Red Flag Consulting Ltd & Ors [2017] IECA 258. The principles listed in Red Flag ha......
-
National Paediatric Hospital Development Board v Bam Building Ltd
...for Defence Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IR 211, Ryan v. Dengrove [2022] IECA 155, Chubb European Group SE v. Perrigo Company [2022] IEHC 444, IBRC v. Fingleton [2015] IEHC 296 and of course the seminal case of Compagnie Financiere Du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. 1882 11 QBD 5......
-
CDB Aviation Lease Finance DAC and Others v Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A and Others
...for either ordering or refusing discovery. He quoted from the judgment of Holland J. in Chubb European Group SA v. Perrigo Company plc [2022] IEHC 444, para. 105: “Save perhaps as to simple and clear issues, it is not generally appropriate at discovery stage to determine, for the purpose of......