Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / UK Court Opinions

UK Court Opinions

U.K. COURT CONSTRUES PARTIES’ INTENT IN CREATING REINSURANCE CONTRACT AGAINST REINSURER

by

Allianz Insurance Company of Egypt (“Allianz”) sued its reinsurer, Aigaion Insurance Company S.A. (“Aigaion”), for US $675,000 arising from the constructive loss of the oceangoing vessel “Ocean Dirk,” one of several scheduled ships under the reinsurance contract. Aigaion denied liability for the claim on the theory that the parties never arrived at consensus over the terms of the reinsurance contract, and thus it was null and void ab initio.

Allianz countered with evidence of communications by and between Allianz, Aigaion, and the intermediary broker who placed the risk, Chedid & Associates Ltd. (“Chedid”). The court held that these communications, consisting mainly of e-mail correspondence, indicated that the parties clearly intended for Aigaion to be bound as Allianz’s reinsurer for certain risks covered by Allianz’s underlying insurance. Aigaion took the position that the communications reflected a continued intent on the part of both parties to negotiate certain terms of the contract, even after the reinsurance contract had issued, but that the parties failed to reach consensus sufficient to create a contract. The court found in Allianz’s favor, noting that the communications reflected a resort to certain shorthand understood in the industry, and that Aigaion clearly communicated its intent to be bound by those terms with the same understanding as had Allianz, at the latest by a date certain which may have post-dated the contract, but nonetheless pre-dated the loss. The Court entered judgment in favor of Allianz for the net premium due. Allianz Insurance Company of Egypt v. Aigaion Insurance Company S.A. [2008] EWHC 1127 (Queen’s Bench Div. Comm. June 2, 2008).

This post written by John Pitblado.

FACTUAL DISPUTES PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER CLAIMS COOPERATION CLAUSE WAS AGREED TO BY REINSUREDS

by

In this English case, the claimant reinsurer, Markel, applied for the UK equivalent of summary judgment against two defendant German reinsureds, seeking a declaration that it was not liable under a contract of reinsurance. The primary issue was whether the contract provided in a claims cooperation clause that it was a condition precedent to any liability under it that if the reinsureds knew of any circumstances which may give rise to a claim against them, they should advise Markel within thirty days. Conflicting evidence was submitted as to whether the parties had agreed to the clause as suggested by Markel. Consequently, the court stated it was unable to accept Markel’s submission that there should be summary judgment since the issue involved questions of fact to be determined at trial. The court further addressed the separate issue of whether knowledge of the manager of the reinsurance pool (VOV) amounted to knowledge of the reinsureds for purposes of the claims cooperation clause. The court rejected Markel’s construction of the clause, holding that under the terms expressed, knowledge of VOV would not be imputed. Summary judgment was denied on all issues. Markel Capital Ltd. v. Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG [2008] EWHC 2517 (Comm. Oct. 24, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

UK COURT ADDRESSES INTERPRETATION OF REINSURANCE SLIP

by

In Mopani Copper Mines PLC v. Millenium Underwriting Limited [2008] EWHC 1331 (Comm. June 16, 2008), the UK Commercial Court determined that under appropriate circumstances it could consider words deleted from a reinsurance slip during the negotiation of its terms in interpreting the scope of coverage ultimately agreed to. The court held that it also could consider the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, the intention of the parties to the contract, and the terms of a prior agreement, but that it would not consider the content of prior negotiations, communications between the insured and its broker which were not communicated to the reinsurers, and the subjective views of the parties as to what they thought they had achieved. This opinion contains an interesting discussion of the factors considered by English courts in the interpretation of reinsurance slips, and should be read by any of our readers who face such issues, or who enter into slips which may be subject to interpretation under English legal principles.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

IS A SERVICE OF SUIT CLAUSE SUFFICIENT TO TRUMP AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE?

by

Reinsurance treaties often contain so-called “service of suit” clauses. The clause typically states something to the effect that “in the event of the failure of Reinsurer hereon to pay any amount claimed to be due, Reinsurer hereon, at the request of the Reinsured, will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will comply with all requirements necessary to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of such Court.” Practitioners may wish to consider the interaction of this clause with an arbitration clause co-existing in the same treaty. Specifically, does the reinsurer’s submission to the jurisdiction of the courts take precedence over the right to arbitrate disputes between the parties? Different courts have reached different results, with the different decisions generally being reconcilable based upon varying language in the service of suit and arbitration provisions of different agreements. In Ace Capital Ltd. v. CMS Energy Corporation [2008] EWHC 1843 (Comm. July 30, 2008), the UK Commercial Court held that it does not. The court acknowledged what it characterized as the minority view that the more specific service of suit clause should prevail over a general arbitration clause, where the single issue of the service of suit clause is a “failure . . . to pay” an amount “claimed to be due” under the treaty, and the arbitration clause broadly refers to “any dispute” arising out of the entire contract. However, the court favored an apparent majority view that a service of suit clause is merely an aid to enforcing awards granted to reinsureds through arbitration.

This post written by Brian Perryman.

COMMUTATION AGREEMENT’S JURISDICTION CLAUSE IS EXCLUSIVE AND MANDATORY, UK COMMERCIAL COURT HOLDS

by

Allstate applied for a stay of proceedings in a UK Commercial Court action brought by Equitas pending the outcome of arbitration in Texas between Allstate and a non-party, Highlands. The English action concerned the scope of a commutation agreement between, among others, Allstate and Equitas. The agreement was governed by English law and contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The claims in the action – the applicability of the commutation agreement to certain Lloyd’s syndicates’ claimed interests in common account excess of loss reinsurance contracts and whether Highland could recover pursuant to the contracts – were also the subject of the Texas arbitration. This was insufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings, however, principally because of the jurisdiction selection clause. The effect of the clause made English jurisdiction exclusive and mandatory, depriving the court of its common law discretion to stay proceedings in favor of another jurisdiction on classic forum non conveniens grounds. Equitas Limited v. Allstate Insurance Company [2008] EWHC 1671 (Comm. July 17, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.