UK: Weekly Update: A Summary of Recent Developments in Insurance, Reinsurance and Litigation Law - 34/10

Last Updated: 22 September 2010
Article by Nigel Brook

THIS WEEK'S CASELAW

Omega Proteins v Aspen Insurance

Whether judgment between insured and third party is binding on liability insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2280.html

The insured was ordered to pay a third party damages after it failed to comply with a new law banning the supply of animal material containing the vertebral column of cattle aged over 24 months. The judgment found that the insured had breached express and implied contractual terms. The insured was placed in liquidation and so the third party brought a direct claim against the insured's liability insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Insurers sought to rely on a policy exclusion which provided that the insurers would not indemnify the insured against any liability arising under a contract "unless such liability would have attached in the absence of such contract". Clarke J held as follows:

  1. The exclusion clause in question requires the court to consider what liability there would have been had there been no contract between the insured and the third party (and not what liability there would have been taking into account the existence of the contract (the existence of a contract sometimes helping to establish the necessary proximity between the parties to found a tortious duty of care)).
  2. The judgment against the insured was not determinative of whether or not the loss is covered under the policy. It is open for both insurers and the insured to dispute whether the insured was in fact liable and, if so, on what basis: "Unless B and C have by contract agreed something different, a judgment given in proceedings between A and B is neither binding on, nor enforceable by, C in subsequent proceedings between B and C".

    Insurers had sought to rely on the observations of Tomlinson J in London Borough of Redbridge v Municipal Mutual Insurance [2001], where he held that it would not normally be possible to "look beyond or outside the four corners of the determination itself for the basis of the liability to which the insured has become subject". Clarke J said that as a first instance decision, these comments were not binding on him and, even if they were, Tomlinson J had only referred to what would "normally" be the position,, In any event, he did not agree with Tomlinson J's conclusion and even if Tomlinson J was correct, it is only the primary facts which are fixed by the judgment against the insured.

    In reinsurance, it is an implied term of the reinsurance contract which is governed by English law that the decision of a foreign court as to the liability of the reinsured to its original insured will be treated as binding (save for certain exceptions), even if the English court might have reached a different conclusion (see Commercial Union v NRG [1998]). Clarke J held that no such implied term arose in this case which did not involve worldwide reinsurance cover and, in any event, did not involve the decision of a foreign court.
  3. In this case, the insured would have been liable even in the absence of the contract pursuant to which it supplied the material. It had failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the product which it supplied was safe and could be lawfully supplied. As part of its duty of care, it should also have kept itself informed of changes in the law (which were reasonably discoverable). Accordingly, it had been negligent.
  4. As for the burden of proof, the judge held that since the policy term in issue was an exclusion clause with an exception (ie every liability which arises under any contract is excluded unless it would have attached anyway) and so it was for the insurer to show that the liability in question arose under a contract and also that the exception was inapplicable. The judge therefore rejected the argument that, once the insurer proves that the loss arose under a contract, it was then for the insured to show that the exception to the exclusion applies. However, it should be noted that this decision was confined to the particular clause in question in this case. The insurers were unable to discharge their burden of proof on the facts. Accordingly, the third party was entitled to be indemnified under the terms of the policy.

COMMENT: In this case, Clarke J was determining a question ("would the insured still have been liable in the absence of the contract?") which could not have been determined in the original action against the insured because that question was not in issue. However, Clarke J also commented that it was open to parties to re-argue questions which had already been decided in the original action. For example, an insured who had been held to be fraudulent in the original action might argue, in a subsequent action between the insured and his insurers, that he was in fact negligent (and therefore covered under his policy). Thus the original action establishes the primary facts (eg that a representation was made and what it included), but in a further action, the judge could look again at whether the representation was fraudulent or negligent (whatever was decided in the original action). In practice this approach will often entail the re-examination of witnesses and other evidence and could therefore be a potentially costly and time-consuming exercise for both the insured and its insurers.

Stonebridge Underwriting v Ontario Municipal

Whether England was the proper place for a reinsurance dispute to be heard

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2279.html

A dispute arose between a Canadian reinsured and its London excess of loss reinsurers. The reinsured commenced proceedings in Canada claiming damages for the reinsurers' alleged failure to honour the terms of the reinsurance contract and the reinsurers then commenced proceedings in England seeking a declaration that they were not liable to indemnify the reinsured. The reinsured applied to the Commercial Court for an order setting aside service of the claim form on it in Canada.

It was accepted by the reinsured that the claim had a realistic prospect of success and that the reinsurers had a good arguable case that each of the relevant causes of action fell within one of the grounds of PD6 para 3.1. However, it argued that England was not the proper place for the claim to be brought.

The reinsurance contract did not contain an express choice of law clause. The reinsured accepted that, as a matter of English choice of law rules, there was a strong chance that the court would conclude that English law was the applicable law. However, it argued that this was not because of an implied choice of English law (as the reinsurers contended) but because English law governed the characteristic performance of the contract (ie the provision of an indemnity).

The reinsured argued that, in not agreeing (expressly or impliedly) to any proper law, the parties were content to have the applicable law (as determined in accordance with private international rules) applied by any court of competent jurisdiction before which any claim was brought. Clarke J held as follows:

  1. The reinsurers had much the better argument for saying that the parties had impliedly chosen English law. Agreeing with Hobhouse LJ in Vesta v Butcher [1986] that "there is something surprising about a policy on a Lloyd's slip, broked through a Lloyd's broker with a Lloyd's underwriter on behalf of a Lloyd's syndicate, being governed by a law other than that of England, particularly when the contract in question is replete with reference to Lloyd's market clauses (themselves likely to be habitually used in contracts governed by English law), and when the characteristic performance is to be by an English underwriter. Although the latter point is of most immediate relevance for determining the law applicable in the absence of an express or implied choice of law, it is not without relevance in deciding whether there was an implied choice".
  2. The fact that the parties had impliedly chosen English law was, in this case, "of considerable significance" when determining the proper forum. If the case was heard in Canada, reinsurers might be deprived of the benefit of English law. Also, the proper construction of the relevant terms of the contract was particularly suited for determination by the Commercial Court, which regularly resolves reinsurance disputes. Nor was it particularly significant that the reinsured had been the first to commence proceedings. The risk of concurrent proceedings is not, of itself, a reason for the English court to decline jurisdiction.

Clarke J added that he would have reached the same conclusion had he decided that English law was applicable only because England was the place of characteristic performance. The disadvantage to the reinsurers of running the risk that the Canadian courts will apply a different law (thus depriving them of a defence otherwise available under English law) is the same, whatever the reason for the application of English law.

Accordingly, the judge declined to grant an order setting aside service of the claim form on the reinsured.

Akzo Nobel v European Commission

ECJ (Grand Chamber) dismisses appeal over legal professional privilege and in-house lawyers (in relation to EU competition investigations)

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-550/07

As reported in Weekly Update 17/10, in April 2010 Advocate General Kokott issued an opinion approving the 2007 decision of the Court of First Instance of the ECJ that communications with in-house lawyers did not qualify for legal professional privilege in the context of EU competition investigations. As was widely predicted, the ECJ Grand Chamber has now followed that opinion and rejected an appeal against the Court of First Instance's judgment. The reasoning of the Grand Chamber was as follows:

  1. Following the decision in AM&S Europe v Commission [1982], legal professional privilege (in relation to EU competition investigations) does not cover exchanges within a company with in-house lawyers because such lawyers are not "independent": "An in-house lawyer, despite his enrolment with a Bar or Law Society and the professional ethical obligations to which he is, as a result, subject, does not enjoy the same degree of independence from his employer as a lawyer working in an external law firm does in relation to his client. Consequently, an in-house lawyer is less able to deal effectively with any conflicts between his professional obligations and the aims of his client". It was said that, as an employee, an in-house lawyer cannot ignore commercial strategies pursued by his employer and so cannot exercise professional independence.
  2. This approach does not violate the general EU law principle of equal treatment because "an in-house lawyer does not enjoy a level of professional independence equal to that of external lawyers".
  3. There is no predominant trend across all the Member States towards affording legal professional privilege to communications with in-house lawyers. A larger number of Member States still exclude in-house lawyers from the scope of legal professional privilege or do not allow them to be admitted to a Bar or Law Society.
  4. Even if consultation with in-house lawyers was covered by the right to obtain legal advice (which the ECJ did not believe was the case), in-house lawyers are not always able to represent their employer before all the national courts.
  5. The conclusion of the ECJ does not undermine the principle of legal certainty and nor does it violate the principle of national procedural autonomy.

COMMENT: This decision, though expected following Advocate General Kokott's opinion, will be disappointing for in-house lawyers, not least because the decision might be deployed in argument in other areas of EU law, beyond competition law. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that this position was first established almost 30 years ago in AM&S and there has been no impact since then from that decision on the general English law position regarding in-house lawyers and privilege. The case of Alfred Compton v Customs & Excise Commissioners (No.2) [1972] confirmed that under English law, in-house lawyers do qualify for legal professional privilege (provided that advice is given in a legal context). Alfred Compton has been continually applied by the English courts, even after AM&S and, more recently, Akzo Nobel and there is no reason to anticipate that this position will change following the Grand Chamber's decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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

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

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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