I suspect there is for D (at a price), and I think there is for C: see this, admittedly from 10 years ago.

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/a-comfort-blanket-to-cling-to-in-case-youre-carrying-twins-808328.html .

Indeed, the latter seems to have been around some time: see the fairly well-known HM Bateman cartoon below.

Andrew

Dear all,

Many thanks, Andrew.

Does anyone know if there is insurance cover available for this kind of thing? Either for C (given the state of the law, more likely to be used) or D? A private IVF clinic seems like the kind of place there could be a market. Is this kind of loss something insurable, and that insurers are interested in? I have no idea. I do find this case at odds with what I think should happen, but I don't find the rule fully compelling so further applications easily feel the same.

All best wishes

Matt

On 17 December 2018 15:22:07 GMT, "Tettenborn A.M." <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:

Confirmation in the English CA today in ARB v IVF Hammersmith & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2803 that contract, as well as tort, bars any claim for the cost of raising a healthy child. To remind you of the facts, a private IVF clinic storing Boyfriend's gametes implanted them without his consent, unlawfully and in breach of contract with Boyfriend, into (ex) Girlfriend, who produced a healthy child for which Boyfriend became responsible. Boyfriend can sue for breach of contract, but can he get any damages for the upbringing cost? In tort he can't (Rees v Darlington [2004] 1 AC 309); but can he in contract? No: the position is no different.

Probably right, in so far as it's invidious to award damages to a parent that demonstrate full well to a child of that parent that he was unwanted in the first place (though if that is so, the conventional award in Rees v Darlington becomes awkward). A slightly worrying statement at [37], however, that it's somehow unjust as such to give more rights to those who pay for a service (private patients) than to those who don't (NHS patients). I don't get that. Surely the point of having a law of contract is precisely to enable those who aren't satisfied with the meagre rights the state gives them as a matter of course to buy better ones if they want them.

Would the claimant have been entitled to the Rees conventional award? Logically it's a bit difficult to distinguish Rees. But we'll never know, since he didn't ask for it.

Andrew 

--

--

Andrew Tettenborn Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law School of Law, University of Swansea Richard Price Building Singleton Park SWANSEA SA2 8PP Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724 Cellphone 07472-708527 / (int) +44-7472-708527 Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855

Andrew Tettenborn Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe Adeilad Richard Price Parc Singleton ABERTAWE SA2 8PP Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724 Ffôn symudol 07472-708527 / (rhyngwladol) +44-7472-708527 Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855

Click on the logo below to refer to my ORCID account

See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst
Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com

Read Andrew's other writing here

Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.