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

UK COURT REJECTS CLAIMS BASED UPON DEFECTION OF LLOYD’S BROKERS TO A COMPETITOR FIRM

by

The defection of three brokers from Global Risks, a Lloyd’s insurance and reinsurance broker, to competitor Tyser & Co., gave rise to claims of breach of contract, violation of employment and fiduciary duties and conspiracy, due to the alleged solicitation by the defectors of clients and employees of Global Risks. The court rejected the claims for different reasons for each claim, including lack of duty, failure of proof and lack of damage. If you are interested in a description of how a Lloyd’s broker works, this would be an interesting opinion to read. Lonmar Global Risks Limited v. West, [2010] EWHC 2878 (Queen’s Bench Nov. 11, 2010).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

ENGLISH APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS ENGLISH JURISDICTION AND APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW TO REINSURANCE AGREEMENT FORMED IN SWITZERLAND

by

In a case pending in English court brought by a property insurer against Swiss-based Glacier Reinsurance AG, another reinsurer, and an English reinsurance brokerage, Glacier moved to dismiss, contending that the proper venue for the claims against it was a court in Switzerland, its domicile. The English court denied Glacier’s motion and the English Appellate Court affirmed. The court applied Article 6 of the Lugano Convention and applicable interpretive case law, which provide that a defendant may be sued in the state of domicile of one of its co-defendants when necessary to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The court explained that this risk exists when the same situation in law and in fact applies to the claims of multiple defendants. The court held that English Law governed the claims against Glacier because Glacier made a “demonstrable choice” of English law when, among other things, it participated in the London market. The court noted that the reinsurance agreement, which was presented to Glacier and accepted by Glacier in Switzerland, should not be construed as a separate placement in the Swiss market. The court also stressed the “commercial need” for a dispute involving multiple parties to be determined by one tribunal. Gard Marine & Energy Ltd. v. Lloyd Tunnicliffe, [2009] EWHC 2388 (Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2010).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

UK COURT INSISTS ON JURISDICTION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPAL REINSURANCE CONTRACT

by

Recently, Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange applied for an order from the UK Royal Court of Justice dismissing an action against it, arguing that England was not the proper forum for the action brought against it by Stonebridge Underwriting Limited (a Lloyd’s underwriter). The claim arose out of an alleged failure by Stonebridge to pay under a 2001-2002 reinsurance contract. The Judge denied Ontario’s request, finding that the concurrent proceedings initiated by Ontario against JTL Canada (on issues directly related to this case) in Canadian Court did not provide a decisive reason for the UK Court to decline jurisdiction. The Court was mindful of the fact that many of the witnesses and much of the evidence were present in Canada, but that these issues were outweighed by the factors in favor of English jurisdiction. The Court noted that a great deal of London reinsurance relates to risk around the globe, and that often, the UK is still the most appropriate jurisdiction. Stonebridge Underwriting Ltd. v. Ontario Mun. Ins. Exchange, [2010] EWHC 2279 (Queen’s Bench Oct. 9, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

UK Court Determines that Arbitrators Correctly Applied US, UK Law

by

In a dispute stemming from various reinsurance claims arising from the Claimant’s participation in an excess of loss reinsurance program which protected the Respondent’s casualty book of business, IRA Brasil Resseguros challenged an arbitration panel’s ruling in favor of CX Reinsurance Company before the UK High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. Mr. Justice Burton granted leave to hear four issues on appeal: (1) the standard of proof required for a reinsured to prove his case under a “double proviso” follows settlements clause; (2) the correct approach to considering the question of proof of loss under such a follow settlements clause; (3) what proof is required in relation to a “losses occurring during” clause; and (4) the test for whether a loss was a loss “arising out of an event.” The court, after considering and applying both UK precedent (for issues 1 and 2) and US case law (for issues 3 and 4) determined that the arbitrators had correctly applied applicable law and dismissed the appeal accordingly. IRB Brasil Resseguros SA v. CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd., Case No. 2010 Folio 12 (Q.B. May 7, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

ENGLISH COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS RULING CONFERRING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ON ENGLISH COURTS, SETS ASIDE RULING CONFINING FRAUD TO CLAIMS OF DECEIT

by

This post is our fourth installment covering this convoluted, international lawsuit involving the Seaton Insurance Company (“Seaton”) and Stonewall Insurance Company (“Stonewall”). The dispute centers around the interpretation of a term sheet that details the termination of the parties’ relationship with respect to the run-off of Seaton’s and Stonewall’s insurance business (see our July 23, 2008, December 22, 2008, and January 20, 2009 posts for more information). Interpreting this term sheet, an English court concluded that the parties agreed to submit all disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts and that the carve-out provision for “fraud” had only the primary meaning of deceit. Seaton and Stonewall appealed. On the jurisdiction issue, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that any claims for fraud must be brought in England and agreed with the lower court judge who called the prospect of a New York court applying the English concept of fraud a “judicial nightmare.” On the “fraud” issue, the Court of Appeals stated that, in the commercial context, the concept of fraud is broader than the concept of deceit which requires a fraudulent misrepresentation, or an equivalent to fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals then set aside the judge’s ruling and substituted a declaration that the “fraud” exception is not limited to claims of deceit; the exception extends in some instances to cases of the dishonest abuse of a fiduciary position. Cavell USA, Inc. v. Seaton Ins. Co. [2009] EWCA 1363 (Dec. 16, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.