• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / UK Court Opinions

UK Court Opinions

UK Court interprets loss notification provision of reinsurance agreement

December 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A Justice of the Queen's Bench Division of the UK Commercial Court has interpreted a loss notification provision of a reinsurance agreement to permit the reinsured to recover under the agreement. The analysis used by the Court is similar in some respects to how courts in the United States interpret insurance policies. AIG Europe (Ireland) Limited v. Faraday Capital Limited, [2006] EWHC 2707 (Comm) (Oct. 31, 2006).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, UK Court Opinions

UK Court denies claim over implementation of EEC Insurance Directive

November 28, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division, has entered an extensive opinion (with an accompanying Appendix), denying claims asserted by various Names against Her Majesty's Treasury, which alleged that the Names had suffered losses at Lloyd's due to the government’s failure appropriately to implement an EEC Insurance Directive (Directive 73/239/EEC). The Names contended that as a result of the failures in the implementation process, the “true IBNR” for US asbestos-related risks were not disclosed, resulting in the Names participating in the reinsurance of such risks, when they would not have done so had they known the “true IBNR” for such risks. Poole v. Her Majesty’s Treasury, [2006] EWHC 2731 (Comm.) (Nov. 8, 2006). The Court denied the claims on two bases: (1) the Insurance Directive did not grant any relevant rights to the Names; and (2) the claims were time barred.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, UK Court Opinions, Week's Best Posts

Modified follow the fortunes provision not apply to settlements by reinsured

November 1, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A UK Court has held that a follow the fortunes provision in facultative reinsurance contracts did not apply to without prejudice settlements reached by a reinsured with its insureds, since the clause provided that the reinsurance would “follow in all respects the settlements or other payments of whatsoever nature excluding without prejudice and ex-gratia settlements.” The clear contractual exclusion of without prejudice settlements from the operation of the follow the fortunes clause meant that the reinsured had to prove that the claims payments were appropriate under the underlying insurance. Faraday Capital Ltd. v. Copenhagen Reinsurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1474, [2006] All ER D 74, 2006 WL 2667603 (Queen's Bench Comm. Ct. May 4, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims, UK Court Opinions, Week's Best Posts

UK Court permits substitution of party in arbitration and expanded damage request

October 17, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has approved an arbitrator's decision to permit the substitution of one Claimant for another to reflect what in effect was a corporate reorganization. It also permitted the Claimant to use a pending arbitration to seek an award of all balances that would come due under the treaty during the pendency of the arbitration, instead of requiring a filing of separate arbitrations for amounts that became due after the commencement of the pending arbitration. Harper Versicherungs AG v. Indemnity Marine Assurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1500 (QB) (June 23, 2006).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, UK Court Opinions, Week's Best Posts

UK Court affirms avoidance of insurance based upon nondisclosure of fraud allegations

October 12, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the avoidance of insurance on a vessel based upon the failure to disclose, during the placement of the insurance, that third parties had made allegations of fraudulent conduct by the prospective insured. North Star Shipping Ltd. v. Sphere Drake Insurance, [2006] EWCA Civ 378 (April 7, 2006). Even though the allegations turned out to be lacking in merit, the Court found that they would have been material to an underwriter considering the placement of the insurance.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Avoidance, UK Court Opinions

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 19
  • Page 20
  • Page 21
  • Page 22
  • Page 23
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 25
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.