At Propertycorruption.com, our investigations have uncovered a striking commonality among entities facing serious allegations of corruption: a persistent refusal to disclose their professional Indemnity Insurance, public liability insurance or any other insurance details (depending on the type of firm).
This pattern of behavior is not isolated. We have observed it across a spectrum of industries, involving major names such as NatWest Group, TLT Solicitors, Nationwide Bank, Oakley Property, Veriforce, Everest Miles Contractors, etc all part of our core case study.
What This Secrecy Indicates: The Deeper Implications
When a firm refuses to provide their insurance details during a dispute, they aren’t just being difficult; they are often protecting their tactical advantage. Here is what that behavior usually signals:
- Hiding Policy Exclusions: Many policies have “conduct exclusions.” If a firm is found to have acted with dishonesty or intentional malice, the insurer may refuse to pay out. By hiding the policy, they prevent you from seeing exactly what behaviors are—and are aren’t—covered.
- Masking “Uninsurable” Risks: A refusal can sometimes indicate that the firm is struggling to maintain coverage due to a high volume of previous claims. If their premiums are skyrocketing or their cover is restricted, they will fight to keep that a secret to maintain a veneer of stability.
The Professional Paradox
For solicitors and financial institutions, transparency isn’t just a courtesy; it is often a regulatory expectation. For example, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) typically requires firms to provide insurance details to “any person who has a legitimate interest.”
What are they all hiding?
Focusing on NatWest and Nationwide
Likely D&O insurers (CEOs, CFOs, CROs covered under this):
- Chubb
- AIG
- Zurich or AXA XL
- Lloyd’s market syndicate carriers
Did Natwest tell insurer about Keiran Foad situation?
If the interim Natwest Chief Risk Officer, Sean Pilcher, fails to declare known material issues during a March or April insurance renewal (we guessed the renewal window), the potential for personal liability is significant. Under the “duty of fair presentation,” a CRO is legally obligated to disclose any information that would influence a prudent insurer’s judgment. The insurer could void the policy entirely, leaving the firm without coverage and exposing the CRO to direct legal action from shareholders, residents or the company itself for professional negligence.
Furthermore, being in an “interim” role provides no legal shield; the standard of care remains identical to that of a permanent officer. Personal liability often triggers when a disclosure failure is categorized as “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct,” which can bypass standard corporate indemnity protections. If the nondisclosure leads to a “denial of cover” for a major claim, the CRO could be personally joined in litigation. Essentially, staying silent on a known risk during a renewal cycle transforms a corporate problem into a personal legal and financial hazard for the individual signing off on the risk profile.
Sean Pilcher
Mr Pilcher read this and this in emails and didn’t request any further information.
24 Feb 2025 – Court not opening any emails related to the mystery hearing (see end of here), Court hub currently won’t list questions we have sent so far, Oakley not answering questions on stopping residents meetings. Read more at main court case page.