Cayman Islands: Captive Insurance and the Perils of Parenthood

The importance of letting go
Last Updated: 3 March 2004
Article by Anthony Menzies

Originally published in September 2003

In law, a captive insurer is an insurance company like any other. A statement of the obvious, perhaps, but nonetheless a technicality that many in the industry have been known to lose sight of from time to time.

Typically, a captive insurer will enter into two contractual insurance relationships, that is to say the inwards insurance, either directly from the parent or from a fronting insurer, and its outwards reinsurance. Even those captives that have been adequately capitalised to bear a large proportion of their own risk will almost certainly need recourse to XL or stop loss reinsurance, in order to preserve the integrity of the security provided to the parent or the fronting insurer.

At the very least, therefore, there will be two links in the chain from the insured parent to the traditional reinsurer, as ultimate risk bearer, and three where a front is interposed. In practice, of course, a captive’s reinsurance programme is frequently more complex than a single outward contract. It will often be structured in such a way that XL cover is superimposed on a proportional quota share treaty, and hence the handling of individual direct claims will impact on both proportional reinsurance and horizontal XL. On any view, there will be multiple parties involved in the structure, and the inevitable opportunity for disputes to arise.

Managers of group or association captives are accustomed to reviewing inward claims with a critical eye. They owe an obligation to the captive in its own right, and in turn to other parent policyholders, to ensure that only recoverable claims are agreed. As such, they can be expected to behave in much the same way as any traditional insurer, and this will often include the retention of outside advisers to assist with difficult coverage issues where necessary.

The same, however, is not always true in the case of single parent captives, where the process is often viewed as a simple risk transfer from the insured parent to the external reinsurer. Under the latter analysis, the intervening steps are little more than an accounting exercise, in which the captive is but a handy conduit through which the risk (or, at least, the excess risk) is channelled to the traditional insurance markets. The temptation to apply this holistic approach should be resisted, particularly when it comes to claims processing, not least because it overlooks the true legal relationships, and obligations, between the various parties.

In the event of a claim, both parent and captive must take steps consistent with an arm’s length relationship, at least if they hope to effect a recovery under the captive’s reinsurance. The paper trail may end up looking contrived at times, particularly where the directing minds of the parent and the captive are one and the same. In those cases, effective Chinese walls should be established, since any attempt to short circuit the process at this early stage can lead to some unfortunate consequences along the chain.

In the first instance, the parent should be careful to notify a claim in accordance with the policy terms. This may be to the captive directly, or to the fronting insurer where one exists. Remember that the front (and only the front) assumes the primary liability to the parent, and with it the credit risk in the event that the captive’s security defaults. That is the reason for charging a commission. If the system fails, the parent will want to look to the front to make good the loss. But the front, naturally, will do everything possible to resist paying a claim under a risk for which it, effectively, never received a commercial premium. The battle lines are drawn, and the parent’s failure to notify the claim can provide the fronting insurer with the handiest of defensive weapons.

Assuming the claim has been properly notified along the chain, the next task is to review issues of coverage under the policy terms. Ask any lawyer to construe a contract and the first thing he will look for is the governing law, and then perhaps the jurisdiction in which any differences in interpretation are to be resolved. Typically, a Cayman Islands captive will exist to insure a US parent, perhaps under a policy that expressly provides for the law and jurisdiction of the parent’s state domicile. The position can be complicated where a fronting insurer is interposed, particularly where the front is domiciled in some other state. Clearly, it is of some importance to ensure that the policies do not contain divergent law and jurisdiction clauses.

Where the risk is written directly by the captive, the policy terms will very often nominate the law and jurisdiction of the captive’s own domicile, for example that of the Cayman Islands. Once a claim arises, it may come as a considerable surprise to many US insureds to learn that Cayman Islands insurance law, based as it is on English law, contains several material differences to that prevailing in many US states. Consider, for example, the case of breach of warranty. The position in Cayman, as in England, is governed by the common law principle that any breach of warranty by the insured will give insurers the right to deny the instant claim and to treat the entire insurance contract as discharged from the date of the breach.

By contrast, the position in New York is regulated by statute, namely s. 3106 of the New York Insurance Law, whereby the right of rescission and/or denial in the case of non-marine insurance claims is limited to those cases where the breach "materially increases the risk of loss, damage or injury within the coverage of the contract". Similar statutory provisions exist in many other of the United States. A Cayman captive that could have denied the inwards claim for reason of a non-material breach of warranty under Cayman Islands law, but does not do so, may well find that its recourse to reinsurance has been prejudiced.

Indeed, it is at the reinsurance level that the more obvious potential for conflict arises. London market reinsurers, for example, will often insist on English law and jurisdiction in respect of the captive’s reinsurance. And even if the contract is silent on the point, it does not follow that the overseas reinsurers have thereby rendered themselves amenable to the captive’s local law or jurisdiction. The common expression ‘as original’ is insufficient to import into the reinsurance contract the choice of law and jurisdiction prevailing in the underlying policy1, and reinsurers are extremely adept at wrong footing cedants by commencing pre-emptive proceedings in their home jurisdiction, seeking judgment against their reinsured by way of declaration as to non-liability.

Reinsured captives must be careful to ensure that any claim they agree is properly recoverable under the inwards policy terms, in accordance with the governing law of that contract. Even where the reinsurance is clearly intended to be back to back with the original cover, the reinsurers are still perfectly entitled to revisit the question of underlying policy liability, and they frequently do. The reinsurance claim will therefore stand or fall on whether the captive was right in its original assessment that the direct claim was payable under its own governing law. The temptation for reinsurers to be ‘wise after the event’ may be difficult to resist.

From the captive’s perspective, this problem can be alleviated by involving the reinsurers in the claim assessment from the outset, and thereby flush out any concerns they may have. Where the reinsurance contract contains a claims control or claims cooperation clause, there will of course be a positive obligation to involve reinsurers from an early stage. The effect of these provisions is to pass control of the underlying claim up to the reinsurers, or at least to require the reinsured to obtain the prior approval of reinsurers before agreeing or compromising a claim.

Compliance with the stipulation is often expressed as a ‘condition precedent’ to recovery, and hence any reinsured captive that settles claims in breach of the clause does so at its peril. It may find the reinsurance recovery is lost, even in cases where the underlying claim is one which would have been payable had the relevant approval been sought when it should have been.

Many reinsureds take solace in the fact that their reinsurance contracts incorporate a ‘follow the settlements’ provision, but again their confidence can be misplaced. Where the clause appears alongside a claims control clause, the latter will effectively emasculate the former2, and even if the follow settlements provision appears on its own, it does not provide the captive with a blank cheque. Agreed claims must still fall within the four corners of the reinsured risks, as a matter of law, and there remains an obligation on the part of the captive, in settling the underlying claim, to do so honestly and in a ‘proper and businesslike’ manner3.

Any captive that agrees its parent’s claims without proper and objective review, or otherwise improperly colludes with the parent in the settlement of claims, will fall foul of this requirement. In the same way, a captive that voluntarily submits to its parent’s jurisdiction, where it was not obliged to do so under the policy terms, will also find itself in difficulty if the court is persuaded that this amounted to an attempt to align its interests with those of the parent to the disadvantage of reinsurers.4

Like many other insurance practitioners, I have written previously in this and other publications on the economic advantages for companies in transferring risk through the medium of their own captive insurer. The benefits are now beyond argument. However, for those who decide to go the captive route, it is important that they understand the business of insurance. In establishing a captive, they are entering into an industry with which they may be unfamiliar, and one which conceals a multitude of traps for the unwary. Few areas of commercial activity have generated quite as much litigation over the years, and this is a reflection of the fact that the handling of insurance claims is fundamentally an adversarial experience.

In setting up the structure, captives and their parents need to do everything possible to minimise these potential points of conflict. This requires tightly controlled policy wordings, which should remain consistent along the risk chain, and in particular free of discrepancies as to governing law and jurisdiction. Bear in mind that the same policy wording can yield very different outcomes, depending on the governing law under which it is to be interpreted.

As regards claims handling, the parent and captive would be well advised to remain estranged. The captive’s obligations under the reinsurance may require it to adopt positions which are entirely adverse to that of the parent, and it follows that too much filial familiarity can be a dangerous thing. Any claims protocol agreed between the parties should respect the independent identity of the captive, and it should clearly specify who is to do what in the event of a claim. Captive insurers, or their outsourced managers, must understand the obligations owed by the captive under its inward and outward contracts, and should be free to consult professionals who are qualified to advise on policy coverage issues under the relevant governing law, without interference from the parent.

Coming from a Cayman insurance lawyer, this no doubt sounds like a covert sales pitch, but it is important to remember that reinsurers will usually reserve the right to inspect the captive’s underlying claims handling records, and they may well deny liability (or worse, avoid the reinsurance altogether) if they find anything untoward. Even small claims that do not, individually, trigger the XL cover on a per loss basis, may well impact on the stop loss or aggregate XL reinsurance, not to mention of course any quota share treaty. It can pay, therefore, to apply the same standing procedure for every claim, large or small.

First Published in International Captive Review, March 2003


1 Forskringsaktielskapet Vesta v. Butcher [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 331; GAN Insurance Company Ltd v. Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 229, affirmed [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 472; AIG Europe (UK) Ltd v. Anonymous Greek Insurance Company of General Insurances, ("The Ethniki") [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 65.

2 Insurance Co of Africa v. Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 312; GAN Insurance Company v. Tai Ping Insurance Company (supra).

3 The Insurance Co of Africa v. Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co Ltd (supra); Hill v. Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co Ltd [1996] 3 All ER 865.

4 Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Strombus International Insurance Co [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 138.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.