• 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 – broker may assert lien for unpaid reinsurance premium

July 27, 2006 by Carlton Fields

Under UK law, a reinsurance broker may assert a lien over claim proceeds for premiums for reinsurance coverage paid by the party's broker, but not reimbursed by the reinsured. Heath Lambert Ltd. v. Sociedad de Corretaje de Seguros, [2006] EWHC 1345 (June 9, 2006).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, UK Court Opinions

UK Court finds lack of authority for reinsurance agreement

July 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has held that a reinsurer is not bound by a contract signed by an agent, supposedly on its behalf, due to the lack of authority to do so, rejecting contentions that the agent had ostensible authority to do so, or that the reinsurer had ratified the contract. ING Re (UK) Limited v. R & V Versicherung AG, [2006] EWHC 1544 (Commercial Court June 29, 2006).

Filed Under: Contract Formation, UK Court Opinions

UK scheme of arrangement binding on non-UK insurers

July 5, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A UK judge has ruled that he has jurisdiction over non-UK insurance companies to administrer and complete the runoff of a Willis Group-managed insurance/reinsurance pool under the UK's scheme of arrangement process. In re Sovereign Marine, [2006] EWHC 1335 (High Court Chancery Division June 9, 2006).

Filed Under: Jurisdiction Issues, UK Court Opinions

UK Court of Appeals speaks on the materiality standard for contract avoidance

June 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In North Star Shipping Ltd v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc, [2006] EWCA Civ 378 (April 7, 2006), the UK Court of Appeals stated that when a party seeks to avoid insurance on the basis of the non-disclosure of a “material circumstance,” a material circumstance “is one that would have an effect on the mind of a prudent insurer in estimating the risk and it is not necessary that it should have a decisive effect on his acceptance of the risk or the amount of premium to be paid.” Id., paragraph 18.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Avoidance, UK Court Opinions

UK – broker’s post-placement duty

April 4, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In HIH v. JLT Risk Solutions Ltd., [2006] EWHC 485 (Comm. Mar. 15, 2006) the High Court discussed circumstances under which a broker owes an insured a duty to advise it of facts material to the risk which occur after the placement of the insurance.

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, UK Court Opinions

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 21
  • Page 22
  • Page 23
  • Page 24
  • 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.