When an insurer admits liability – can the defendant still deny it?

A recent High Court decision shows just how important it is to be careful when admitting liability before a claim even reaches court. In Industrial Maintenance Engineers (I.M.E. Contracts) Ltd v Webster Miller Ltd [2026], the court confirmed that an admission made by an insurer (through its loss adjuster) can bind the insured party – even if the defendant later tries to deny liability.

What happened?

The case arose from damage to a warehouse caused during unloading by the defendant’s driver. The defendant’s insurer was notified of the potential claim, the insurer appointed a loss adjuster and the loss adjuster emailed the claimant stating: “the insurer has advised that liability is accepted”.  Despite this clear statement, the defendant later filed a defence denying liability arguing it was not bound by the admission.  The insurer also tried to avoid the claim, arguing the incident was not covered under the policy.

What was the key issue?

The central question for the court was whether the defendant could resile from that earlier statement and defend the claim, or whether it was already bound by what had been said before proceedings began.

This raised a broader issue that frequently arises in practice: how far pre-action communications, often made quickly and informally, can determine the outcome of a dispute.

What did the court decide?

The court had little difficulty concluding that the email amounted to a clear admission of liability. It rejected the argument that the statement was made on a 'without prejudice' basis and found that it was intended to be relied upon.

Crucially, the court also found that the loss adjuster was acting with authority on behalf of the insurer. Under the terms of the insurance policy, the insurer had the right to take full control of the defence of claims. That meant the insurer’s actions – including the admission – were treated as actions of the defendant itself. 

As a result, the defendant was bound by the admission.

Why couldn’t the admission be withdrawn?

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a party can admit liability before court proceedings start, but once proceedings are underway it cannot simply change its position. Instead, it must apply to the court for permission to withdraw the admission. 

The court will only allow that in limited circumstances, considering factors such as whether there is new evidence, the conduct of the parties, and whether allowing the change would cause unfair prejudice. 

In this case, although the defendant argued that it might have a real prospect of defending the claim if allowed to do so, there was no new evidence to justify the change in position. More importantly, the claimant had relied on the admission when bringing the claim. Allowing the defendant to withdraw the admission would have forced the claimant into a full dispute on liability, with the associated cost and delay.

The court therefore refused permission to withdraw the admission.

The outcome

Because the admission stood, the court went on to grant summary judgment on liability. In practical terms, this meant the claimant did not need to prove fault at a full trial, significantly shortening the dispute.

Why this matters

This decision is a useful reminder that early communications in a dispute can have lasting consequences. Statements made by insurers or their representatives—particularly those that clearly accept liability—can bind the insured party where the policy gives the insurer control over the claim.

It also underlines the limited scope to reverse course. While it may be tempting to revisit an early admission when the fuller picture emerges, the courts will not allow this lightly. The absence of new evidence and the impact on the other party will weigh heavily against any attempt to withdraw.

For businesses, insurers and their advisers, the takeaway is clear: admissions should only be made after careful consideration. What may appear to be a routine step in progressing a claim could ultimately determine the outcome of the dispute.

Final thoughts

The decision is a reminder that early-stage communications matter. What might seem like a routine update on a claim can become a binding legal admission.

Once liability is accepted, stepping back from that position is far from straightforward — and, as this case shows, may not be possible at all.

If you have any concerns about an ongoing damages claim or want to know more about how you might handle one in the future contact Chris Heitzman, a consultant in Burges Salmon’s Property and Asset Damage Claims Team.