UK: Reinsureds Required to Disclose Allegations to their Reinsurers

Last Updated: 8 July 2004
Article by Patrick Foss and Michael Bird

In Brotherton v. Aseguradora Colseguros and Another [16th July 2003] Unreported, the Court of Appeal considered the duty on a reinsured to disclose to a reinsurer the existence of allegations of misconduct against the underlying assured.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal had to choose between two decisions of a lower court (the Commercial Court). In The Grecia Express [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 88, the Commercial Court had said that non-disclosure of mere allegations of an assured’s history of scuttling vessels did not justify an avoidance if the assured maintained that the allegations were wrong and would (if allowed) be able to prove this to the court. The allegations would only be material if the assured could not prove that the allegations were wrong.

In the subsequent case of Drake Insurance plc v. Provident Insurance plc [2003] 1 All ER Comm 759, a different judge in the Commercial Court had expressly disapproved The Grecia Express. A motor insurance contract had been avoided for non-disclosure of a speeding conviction. The court upheld that avoidance even though there was evidence that, if the speeding conviction had been disclosed, the assured’s whole history might then have been looked at more closely. An entirely separate earlier accident might then have been positively re-rated as a "nofault" accident, balancing out the speeding conviction in such a way that the terms of the insurance would not have changed after all. This information about the earlier accident (that had only come to light after the avoidance) suggested that the avoidance would not have been justified. This still did not sway the court. The Grecia Express was criticised as introducing "an additional and unwelcome element of uncertainty" because it put insurers at a greater risk of their avoidance being re-opened at trial.

In the Brotherton case, the claimants were London reinsurers who were seeking a declaration from the English court that they had validly avoided a reinsurance contract with two Colombian insurance companies called Aseguradora Colseguros S.A. and La Previsora S.A., Compania de Seguros.

The Colombian insurance companies had provided bankers’ blanket bond and professional indemnity insurance to a Colombian bank called Caja Agraria. Amongst other things, the insurance covered losses caused by dishonest or fraudulent acts of bank employees.

Leading up to the making of the reinsurance contract in late 1997, there were seven news bulletins and fifteen newspaper articles in Colombia carrying reports about alleged misconduct and related investigations into Caja Agraria’s business and the conduct of its President Mr Medina. There were allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public funds and so on. Also prior to late 1997, Mr Medina had been suspended from his post and had been served with an arrest warrant.

The London reinsurers said that the reports alone (and, all the more, the reports coupled with the fact that the investigations were taking place) were material facts that should have been disclosed to them by the Colombian insurance companies on placing. This was either because the information might increase the risk of claims under the reinsurance or because of the moral hazard involved. The facts had not been disclosed. The reinsurers avoided the reinsurance.

The Colombian insurers admitted the existence of the reports and the investigations but said that they were not material. They said that the suspension of Mr Medina and the investigations had been politically motivated and that the vast majority of the charges against him had been dropped after the reinsurance was agreed. They insisted that the information was not material even though, at the time of placement of the reinsurance, there was no objective way of knowing that it was untrue. The insurers thus argued that they should have the opportunity to prove at trial that the allegations made against Mr Medina were unfounded.

The issues for decision by the Court of Appeal were therefore whether:-

(a) The materiality of the admitted reports (or the reports coupled with the admitted investigations); or

(b) The validity of the avoidance depended on whether the allegations were true.

Having considered the two Commercial Court cases, the Court of Appeal in Brotherton preferred the reasoning in the later Drake Insurance case. The Court of Appeal held that the mere existence of allegations can be material and disclosable in such a way that an avoidance may be justified – even though those allegations may turn out to be untrue later. At the same time as it discloses the allegations, the reinsured can disclose evidence that the allegations are untrue in order to try to persuade the underwriter that the information is not material.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the question of whether or not the allegations are true is not in itself the point. It was not for the court to establish their truth. It was for the court to establish their materiality in the mind of the underwriter. If the existence of allegations is material in itself at the time of placing, then this is enough to justify avoidance.

The Court of Appeal was concerned that a reinsured could otherwise resist disclosure of information on the basis that he could later prove its untruth even though an opportunity to prove its untruth might never arise in practice – or alternatively that the reinsured would have to prove its untruth in subsequent unnecessary litigation. A decision on materiality had to be taken at the time of placing – not at a later trial. Also, in practice, it might be very hard to assess the truth of allegations. It was easier to assess their materiality.

The matter was remitted back to the Commercial Court, which found that the facts withheld were indeed material.

The Court of Appeal decision in Brotherton has now been commented upon by the Court of Appeal in another judgment, namely the appeal judgment in the Drake Insurance [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268 case referred to above (although it should be noted that the Court has stressed that its comments are made with caution and are not aimed at deciding the case before it).

In the leading judgment, Rix L.J. has distinguished Brotherton from Drake Insurance on the basis that, in Brotherton, the new evidence relating to the Colombian allegations only came into existence after the contract of insurance was agreed while, in Drake Insurance, the "no-fault" nature of the earlier accident was known to the assured at the time of placing.

According to Rix L.J., an insurer is entitled to avoid on the basis of the true state of affairs at the time of placing, even where he is not fully aware of it at the time. On the other hand, if he does avoid the contract of insurance, then he takes the risk of evidence later emerging that the avoidance was unjustified. Where evidence that the circumstances relied upon by the insurer were not material did not exist at the time of placing, then it will be irrelevant (as was held in Brotherton) but, where the evidence did exist at the time of placing, then the right to avoid will be denied, even where the insurer was not aware of the circumstances in question.

This means that, where an insured faces unjustified allegations, it should still disclose them to its insurers. At the same time, it would be well-advised to disclose any evidence that the allegations are wrong. Similarly, a reinsured should also disclose to his reinsurers any allegation about the original assured together with any evidence that those allegations are misplaced.

One important distinction between the Drake and Brotherton cases should be borne in mind. In Brotherton the issue was the right of the reinsured to adduce evidence at the trial in the hope of persuading the Court to exercise its equitable discretion to refuse avoidance. In Drake the issue was the state of the insurers’ knowledge when they purported to avoid (i.e. the extent to which they had complied with their continuing duty of good faith). In the light of Drake, insurers/reinsurers cannot now avoid without making some basic checks before they purport do to so. This may be because the facts they rely on do not in fact exist, because if there had been disclosure the whole presentation of the risk might have taken a different turn (as in Drake) or because the insurers know or ought to know that the facts relied upon were non-existent.

In conclusion it seems that in the reinsurance context, the reinsured should disclose even possibly unjustified allegations against the original insured, as otherwise there is a risk that the reinsurance will be avoided unless there is already information available that the allegations can be refuted. However, a direct insurer may be in a more difficult position where he wishes to avoid a policy in these circumstances.

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
 
In association with
Related Video
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.