AXA Insurance UK PLC has secured a significant legal victory in a commercial property insurance case that’s sending ripples through the UK insurance sector.
On July 31, 2025, the High Court in London ruled in favour of AXA in the case brought by Mode Management Ltd and property owner Gary Tregunno. At the heart of the dispute was a “Property Investor’s Protection Plan Insurance” policy and a devastating fire that occurred on February 7, 2018. The fire destroyed one industrial unit and severely damaged two others at Hereford House, Lower Dunton Road, Brentwood.
Gary Tregunno owned the property. However, the policy was taken out in the name of Mode Management Ltd, where Tregunno served as the sole director. Despite this relationship, AXA refused to honour the claim and voided the policy entirely by letter dated September 28, 2018. The insurer cited several misrepresentations and non-disclosures made before the policy was issued.
AXA Raised Concerns Over Ownership and Disclosure
AXA’s rejection stemmed from a few red flags. First, it questioned Mode’s insurable interest because Tregunno, not Mode, owned the property. Secondly, there were unresolved issues about planning permissions for proposed renovations. Finally, the existence of several county court judgments against Tregunno raised underwriting concerns.
Initially, Tregunno claimed there was a lease agreement between him and Mode. Later, the legal filings claimed Mode held the property interest in trust for trustees of the Buckingham Administrators Remuneration Trust, citing a fiduciary agreement from July 7, 2016.
Despite the voided policy, Mode and Tregunno pursued the matter persistently. They filed two complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, both were dismissed, first in May 2020 and again in August 2022.
Undeterred, they escalated the dispute to court. On September 26, 2024, they filed a claim seeking declaratory relief, specific performance of the contract, and damages under section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Related: Top 10 UK Insurance Companies
Court Finds Claims Were Time-Barred and Lacked Merit
AXA swiftly countered with an application for summary judgment or strike out. The insurer argued that the claim had no realistic chance of success and was barred by the six-year limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
The court reviewed the policy closely. It provided coverage for buildings, rental income, and public liability. The insured party listed was Mode Management Ltd. The sums insured included £349,409 for Unit 1 and £209,645 each for Units 2 and 3. Rental income was also covered for £36,000, £26,000, and £24,000 respectively. Importantly, the contract allowed AXA the discretion to either pay out or reinstate and did not extend rights to third parties.
A key legal question was whether Mode could demand specific performance from AXA to reinstate its pre-loss position. However, the court concluded that both the right to claim and the associated damages arose on the day of the fire. Therefore, the claim for damages was time-barred. The judge further ruled that specific performance couldn’t be used to sidestep this statutory deadline.
Related: Zurich Insurance Acquires Cyber Insurtech BOXX to Expand Global SME and Protection
Additional Claims Also Dismissed
The court also evaluated whether Mode could claim damages under the Financial Services and Markets Act. However, Mode, as a business entity, did not meet the legal definition of a “private person.” This meant the claim failed under that provision as well.
Tregunno’s separate argument under the Fire Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 was also dismissed. This claim was dependent on Mode’s success, which the court had already denied.
Ultimately, the judge granted AXA’s application. All claims were struck out, and summary judgment was entered in the insurer’s favour.
Related: AXA Launches a Course to Raise Awareness for Marine Ecosystem Protection
What This Case Means for the UK Insurance Sector
This case from AXA serves as a stark reminder to brokers, underwriters, and policyholders: accurate disclosure, clear ownership, and prompt legal action are crucial in commercial property insurance claims.
Insurers should be encouraged by this ruling. It reinforces the importance of thorough underwriting and immediate responses when potential misrepresentation is suspected. As the UK commercial insurance landscape becomes increasingly complex, this judgment shows how critical contract language and statutory deadlines are.
For policyholders, the lesson is clear: delays can be fatal to claims. Clarity around ownership and full transparency during the application process is non-negotiable.
This ruling not only brings closure to a six-year legal battle but also sets a firm precedent for how UK courts will approach future commercial insurance disputes.
