Dear Colleagues,

 

I'd appreciate any information available on published or forthcoming articles that deal with the way Lords Mance and Kerr seemed to have attempted to restate what Barker v. Corus defined as the actionable injury under the Fairchild exception, even if it's only in the context of a piece attempting to justify or challenge their interpretation of the policy coverage.

 

Offline or online as you prefer.

 

Cheers,

 

David Cheifetz

Smockum Zarnett Percival LLP