Picture of Zoe Burge

Zoe Burge


CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
College Square
2 Anchor Road
United Kingdom
Languages English, French

Zoe Burge is a partner and Solicitor Advocate in the Insurance & Reinsurance Group of CMS UK. Zoe has worked in the London insurance market since 2008 and has a background in commercial disputes. Zoe moved from London to Bristol in 2012 and manages our Bristol team of insurance lawyers.

Zoe has worked on a wide range of professional indemnity disputes, but has particular experience of claims against solicitors and insurance intermediaries. Zoe also regularly advises Insurers on complex policy coverage issues relating to D&O, financial institutions and solicitors.

Zoe has her Higher Rights of Audience in Civil Advocacy and is a contributor to “Solicitors’ Claims: A Practical Guide” which was published by Sweet & Maxwell in 2013.

more less

Relevant experience

  • Top 10 City Law Firms on the defence of high value and complex claims against solicitors, including but not limited to those arising out of mishandled litigation, tax planning schemes, commercial licensing arrangements, matrimonial proceedings; company acquisitions and mortgage fraud.
  • Insurers on policy coverage in relation to claims against solicitors (including off-shore firms) and brokers.
  • Insurers on policy in relation to claims against directors, IFAs, hedge funds, venture capitalists; including, claims brought by the FSCS following the collapse of Keydata and claims arising from Madoff;
  • Insurers on coverage and monitoring in respect of a USD 40m breach of trust claim in Jersey arising out of claims by investors in a highly complicated off-shore property investment structure.
  • Large scale commercial disputes including: FTI Consulting Ltd in its defence of an USD 800m claim brought by Dar Al Arkan and Bank Alkhair (Top 20 case in Commercial Court for 2014 and 2015) and the Liquidators of BCCI in their USD 1bn claim against the Bank of England for misfeasance. 
more less


1999 – LPC, College of Law, Chester

1998 – LLB (Hons), University of Birmingham 

more less


Contributor to “Solicitors’ Claims: A Practical Guide”, published with Sweet & Maxwell in October 2013

Contributor to the market publication “Insurance Broking Practice and the Law

more less


Show only
11 August 2016
Insurance issues: key issues for the insurance mar...
Professional Negligence: Supreme Court decision in BPE Solicitors...
The Supreme Court provided important clarification of SAAMCO last month in BPE Solicitors and another v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel).   The issue on appeal was what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional.
Insurance: Supreme Court ruling on aggregation
The Supreme Court has handed down the long awaited final decision in the case of AIG v Woodman & others. The Supreme Court was asked to consider the meaning of the phrase “related matters or transactions” in the aggregation wording permitted in the Minimum.
Denton ‘remains good law’ as Court of Appeal reaffirms importance...
The Court of Appeal, with the Master of the Rolls presiding, this week in Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd refused to allow an appeal for relief from sanctions where the Appellant’s solicitors had failed to serve witness statements until two.
Solicitors' PI: “Trade Debts” exclusion in the Minimum Terms and...
The Supreme Court has reversed (by a 4:1 majority) the Court of Appeal decision in Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd on the application of a “Trade Debts” exclusion in a solicitors’ professional indemnity policy.
Fraud: setting aside a compromise influenced by fraudulent missta...
On 27 July 2016, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc. This clarifies the extent to which a party to a litigation settlement needs to have relied on fraudulent representations by the other party to be able to go behind.
Insurance: genuine claim will not be forfeit where supported by '...
The Supreme Court has decided by a 4:1 majority that the use of fraudulent devices – or collateral lies as the court preferred to call them – in support of genuine claims will no longer result in the claim being forfeited.