UK Court Opinions

UK COURT RULES ON SCOPE OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF ENGLISH ARBITRATIONS

May 20, 2008 by Carlton Fields

Due to the relationships between the UK and US insurance and reinsurance markets, and the fact that different reinsurance agreements in a reinsurance program may involve both UK and US arbitration provisions, there are frequent overlaps between the two jurisdictions when things go awry. In a lengthy opinion, the UK Court of Appeals has engaged in an extensive discussion of the basis for the confidentiality of UK arbitration materials, and the circumstances under which such materials may be disclosed in other proceedings. Noting the strong tradition of confidentiality, the Court noted that exceptions “are still in the process of development on a case-by-case basis,” but that the principal instances in which disclosure may be appropriate are: (1) where there is consent, express or implied; (2) by court order (with courts not having general discretion to waive confidentiality); (3) where reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitrating party; and (4) where required in the interests of justice, and perhaps the public interest. This may become a very influential opinion in this area of English jurisprudence. Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184 (Mar. 12, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

ENGLISH COURT DENIES AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS; PERMITS INSURER TO SEEK RECOVERY FROM BROKER

April 16, 2008 by Carlton Fields

The English Commercial Court has ruled that Standard Life Assurance Ltd can not recover damages from its underwriters arising out of the improper sales of mortgage endowment policies, but could claim against its insurance broker, Aon. Standard Life subscribed to a policy with a liability cover of £75 million in excess of £25 million. The policy contained a provision permitting the aggregation of claims arising from an originating cause or source. The insured aggregated 97,000 small claims and sought to recover the full £75 million excess of £25 million. The underwriters claimed that even if the claims did arise from a single originating cause, the claims could not be aggregated because the policy schedule and slip contained the wording “excess: £25million each and every claim and/or claimant.”

The court agreed with the underwriters, finding that the policy did not allow for the claims to be aggregated together, meaning the excess limit could not be reached. Specifically, the court found no “plausible purpose for the inclusion of the words ‘and/or claimant’ in the excess provision in the slip other than the attempted achievement of a per claimant excess.”

Prior to the court’s ruling, Aon brought its own negligence claim against Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (“RPC”) as a third party to the proceedings. Aon’s claim against RPC argues that the firm did not recognize that the wording of the policy meant the claims could not be grouped together. Standard Life Assurance Ltd. – and – Oak Dedicated Ltd. – and – Aon Ltd., Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, [2008] EWHC 222 (Comm. Feb. 13, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

CASE UPDATE: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES DECISION DENYING REINSURANCE COVERAGE, MARKING DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS RULINGS

April 8, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In a May 23, 2007 post, we reported on a UK decision denying reinsurance coverage despite a follow the fortunes provision based on a finding that the damages occurred outside the coverage period of the reinsurance, despite the conclusion of a US court on the underlying claim finding liability for damage occurring outside the coverage period of the underlying policy. The UK Court of Appeals has allowed an appeal, finding that the coverage provision of the reinsurance should be interpreted in the same manner as the coverage provision in the underlying insurance.

The English appellate court agreed that the insurance and reinsurance contracts were not entirely “back to back” in terms of the coverage periods, but concluded that although there were some differences in the contracts, the parties intended that they should have the same effect and therefore, the reinsured’s settlement of the insurance claim did fall within the terms of the reinsurance contract. Despite the fact that the reinsurance appeared only to cover damage that occurred during the period of the reinsurance, and the trigger of coverage used by the US court permitted a broader recovery from the insurer, the Court of Appeals accepted the proposition that “the same or equivalent [coverage] wordings should be given the same meaning in the reinsurance contract as in the insurance contract.”

Explaining that the UK reinsurer had taken certain known risks in reinsuring a US insurer, the Court concluded that although the judgment against the insured was not one which the reinsurers expected, nevertheless it was one which was a possibility that they agreed to cover. This decision marks a departure from previous ‘follow the settlement’ cases involving differences in the insurance and reinsurance contracts, which have typically been resolved in favor of the reinsurers. Wasa International Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., [2008] EWCA Civ 150 (Feb. 29, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

CASE UPDATE: UK COURT REJECTS LATEST CHALLENGE TO ENFORCEMENT OF $88 MILLION GAZPROM ARBITRATION AWARD

March 26, 2008 by Carlton Fields

On June 14, 2007 and November 27, 2007, we reported on a $88 million arbitration award rendered in Russia involving energy giant Gazprom, and efforts to enforce the award in the United States and the United Kingdon pursuant to the New York Convention, the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the UK’s Arbitration Act of 1996. In a last attempt to avoid the arbitration award, it was contended to the UK Commercial Court that the award should not be enforced because it was contrary to public policy due to fraud in the underlying arbitration proceeding and the underlying reinsurance transactions, which appeared not to transfer any risk. The Commercial Court has rejected the presentation, concluding that the award had been confirmed through the Russian courts and that the alleged irregularities were insufficient to warrant a refusal to enforce the award. Gater Assets Limited v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm. Feb. 15, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

UK COMMERCIAL COURT DENIES LIBYAN INSURER’S CLAIMS AGAINST LONDON BROKER

February 27, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In 2004, Aon (a London broker) placed reinsurance for risks that United Insurance Company (a Libyan insurance company) assumed in insuring assets of a Libyan state-owned oil company. Aon also obtained reinsurance for United in relation to a Libyan company in the chemicals industry. Aon placed the business in the London market. After renewing the business in 2005, United brought three claims against Aon. United sought to recover brokerage fees paid to Aon on the basis that Aon misrepresented the nature of cover, commissions, and fees. United was unsuccessful on all of its claims. The Commercial Court found that United’s evidence did not match the relevant contemporary documents and was contradicted by Aon’s evidence. United Insurance Co of Libya v. Aon Ltd., [2007] EWHC 1583 (Comm. July 5, 2007). This opinion is not on the UK Court site, but is available on WESTLAW at 2007 WL 1942745.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.