AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman [2017] UKSC 18 is the defining authority on how professional indemnity claims are aggregated in England and Wales. The Supreme Court was asked to interpret the aggregation clause in the Solicitors Regulation Authority Minimum Terms and Conditions, and its reasoning now shapes how insurers, brokers and professionals read almost every aggregating wording in the market.
A firm of solicitors acted for two groups of investors who put money into holiday property developments in Turkey and Morocco. The developments failed. More than 200 investors brought claims against the firm, alleging that their money had been released from escrow without adequate security. AIG, the firm's insurer, wanted the claims treated as one, because the relevant Minimum Terms wording aggregated claims that arose "from similar acts or omissions in a series of related matters or transactions".
The Court rejected the Court of Appeal's gloss that the transactions had to be "conditional or dependent on each other" through an "intrinsic" relationship. Instead it held that "matters or transactions" must be genuinely related — fitting together in some real way — but that relatedness is an open-textured question of fact and degree. Similarity of the acts or omissions is necessary but not sufficient; there must also be a real connection between the transactions themselves. The case was remitted for that factual assessment.
Professionals often assume that fewer, aggregated claims are always better. They are not. Aggregation reduces the number of self-insured excesses payable, which helps the insured. But it also collapses many claims into a single limit of indemnity, which can leave a professional badly exposed if the aggregated value exceeds the sum insured. Reading the aggregation clause before a claim arises — not after — is part of understanding how much cover a policy really provides.
The Woodman test is not confined to solicitors. Because the "series of related matters or transactions" wording appears widely, the same reasoning informs claims across the professions. Firms reviewing the guidance for solicitors' professional indemnity insurance should read the aggregation clause alongside their limit of indemnity, and those acting as expert witnesses should note how a single flawed methodology applied across several instructions might be aggregated. Apex helps professional firms read these clauses in the context of their actual work.
Because Woodman turns on the idea of related matters, the practical questions are about connection rather than mere similarity. When you read your policy, consider:
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.