UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 19 August 2014

Last Updated: 28 August 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the thirty-first edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2014

A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.

This week's caselaw

  • Amlin Corporate v Oriental Assurance
    The Court of Appeal agrees that there had been a breach of warranty in a reinsurance contract.
  • Dowdall v Kenyon & Sons
    A Clyde & Co case on whether a claimant could pursue a mesothelioma claim after having settled with other employers.
  • Lehman Brothers v Klaus Tschira
    A decision on the meaning of a "court" and "proceedings" under article 27 of the Lugano Convention.
  • Other News
    The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has revealed some of the upcoming changes to the CPR.

Amlin Corporate v Oriental Assurance

Court of Appeal agrees that there had been a breach of warranty in a reinsurance contract

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1135.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 29/13. The claimant reinsurer alleged that there had been a breach of a Typhoon Warranty contained in both the reinsurance and insurance policies. The warranty read as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy or clauses attached hereto, it is expressly warranted that the carrying vessel shall not sail or put out of Sheltered Port when there is a typhoon or storm warning at that port nor when her destination or intended route may be within the possible path of the typhoon or storm announced at the port of sailing, port of destination or any intervening point. Violation of this warranty shall render this policy void".

Field J held that there had been a breach of warranty because a storm warning had been given before the vessel had sailed from port. The reinsured appealed and that appeal has now been dismissed. The Court of Appeal held as follows:

  1. Although the warranty should be construed in accordance with Philippine law (given the presence of a follow the settlements clause and the almost identical wording for the warranty in both the insurance policy and the reinsurance contact), no evidence had been adduced as to the interpretation of the warranty in that jurisdiction and hence the clause in the reinsurance policy had to be construed in accordance with English law. It was common ground that there was no difference in any event between Philippine and English law with respect to policy interpretation.
  2. In accordance with well-established principles of construction, the court should look at the language actually chosen by the parties and give those words their ordinary natural meaning. The words used here were not commercially nonsensical, and hence there was no need to add in any wording. The warranty was clear and unambiguous and there was therefore no need to consider how typhoon warnings were generally understood and acted upon by the maritime community in the Philippines.
  3. It was also clear that the underlying policy of the warranty was "safety first" and it therefore made no difference that the reinsurers' interpretation might possibly lead, in some cases, to uncommercial results (eg the warranty would be breached even if a vessel was trying to sail away from an area covered by a warning): "I agree with the judge that the typhoon warranty has to be construed in such a way so as to prevent the vessel from sailing when there was any possibility of an encounter by the scheduled vessel with a typhoon or storm".
  4. The Court of Appeal also upheld the first instance decision that the "intended" route of the vessel had been its usual route (even if the captain intended to depart from that route if the weather becomes "really, really bad").
  5. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the judge was not bound to accept as evidence the differing conclusions of the various Philippine tribunals in relation to any issue in this case: "In the circumstances, he was clearly entitled to look at the underlying evidence himself". In reaching that conclusion, reliance was placed on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Rogers v Hoyle (see Weekly Update 11/14) which, it was said, demonstrated that the findings of tribunals may be admissible in evidence (insofar as they reflect expert opinion) but those opinions can be excluded or held to be irrelevant. Here, the tribunals' findings (dealing with what the insured would have understood at the relevant time) were irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the vessel had set sail during a storm warning.

Dowdall v Kenyon & Sons

Whether claimant could pursue mesothelioma claim after having settled with other employers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2822.html

Clyde & Co for defendants

The novel issue in this case was whether a claimant could bring a claim for mesothelioma against some of his former employers despite having settled an earlier claim which he had brought against certain other former employers for the risk of developing mesothelioma.

It is well-established that mesothelioma is not a divisible injury – it may be caused by a single fibre. Hence, if several employers expose a worker to asbestos, it cannot be proven which employer actually caused the condition – it can only be shown that an employer has increased the risk of mesothelioma. As a result, the worker can recover in full from any employer who has increased his risk of developing mesothelioma (leaving the employers to apportion liability between themselves).

In this case, the claimant had not originally claimed against three of his past employers because his solicitors did not know the correct name for one of them and were unable to identify the relevant insurers of the other two employers (now dissolved). However, after developing mesothelioma, he now sought to claim against those three employers.

The judge allowed the claim. He held that it was not an abuse of process for the claim to be brought. The claimant had not been fully compensated in the first action: "The Claimant elected to accept a sum for the risk of mesothelioma and in return decided not to seek an order permitting him to return to court in the event that mesothelioma actually developed. The settlement deliberately excluded any sum which would follow from the development of the condition. It cannot therefore be said that it included such a sum". The judge held it made no difference that the claimant had chosen to abandon his provisional damages claim (which would have led to full compensation after mesothelioma developed), so that liability for mesothelioma would now have to be shared three ways, rather than amongst all the employers (with the three employers left to pursue a contribution claim (which had an uncertain chance of success) against those other employers.

Although the claim against the three employers was time-barred, the judge also decided to exercise his discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the action to proceed. He said that the principal consideration was the fact that the claimant had a substantial claim for a very serious injury and had good prospects for establishing the defendants' liability. The fact that the three employers might have had a chance to avoid paying for the development of mesothelioma, had they been given a chance to join in the original settlement, "really means that they have lost a chance of escaping without paying the claimant the damages to which he is otherwise presumed to be entitled".

Lehman Brothers v Klaus Tschira

The meaning of a "court" and "proceedings" under article 27 of the Lugano Convention

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2782.html

Article 27 of the Lugano Convention provides that "Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different States bound by this Convention, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established" (the same provision is also contained in Article 27 of Regulation 44/2001). The issue in this case was whether Switzerland had been first seised after "conciliatory proceedings" had been started there. Such proceedings are a mandatory first step in the resolution of civil and commercial disputes within the court system. These proceedings can be contrasted with mediation which may take place instead of conciliation or during court proceedings (the parties are responsible for the organisation and conduct of the mediation and the mediation proceedings are confidential and kept separate from the conciliation authority and the court). By contrast, the conciliation authority is a state authority which, although separate from the courts, is part of the judicial system.

There is no definition of "court" or "proceedings" in the Convention. However, Richards J held that the fundamental purpose of the provision is to avoid parties being subject to parallel proceedings and to avoid conflicting judgments and "In circumstances where conciliation proceedings are, or may arguably be, mandatory it is unrealistic not to regard them as part of the proceedings which will or may lead to an enforceable judgment". As a result, Switzerland had been first seised when a written request for conciliation had been lodged.

Other News

Upcoming CPR changes:

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has revealed some of the changes to Part 36 offers being considered. These include:

  1. Removing the need to formally withdraw a Part 36 offer and allowing time-limited offers instead;
  2. Making time to accept the offer run from the date of receipt, rather than service, of the offer (so avoiding the application of the Part 6 service rules);
  3. Introducing a new rule expressly dealing with the position for Part 36 offers by counterclaiming defendants and other parties;
  4. Tackling "cynical" claimant offers (where a claimant offers to accept 100%, or close to 100%, of its claim); and
  5. Changing the current position, so that judges can be told about an issue-based Part 36 offer, where that issue has been tried as a preliminary issue.

For further details, see this link below:

http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-577-3298

The Civil Rules Committee has also explained how it is making plans to implement the recast Regulation 44/2001 here (the recast Regulation comes into effect on 10 January 2015). Primarily, the CPR will be amended to remove the need to register a foreign judgment obtained from a Member State in order to enforce it. The foreign judgment will become enforceable directly, provided certain requirements as to service of certain documents on the judgment debtor are fulfilled. Other changes necessitated by the recast Regulation will be brought in by regulations.

The Pre-Action Conduct PD: The Civil Rules Committee has rejected the call by Jackson LJ to entirely remove the sections on exchanging information before starting proceedings and attempting ADR (section III) as well as the sections covering disclosure, experts, limitation and notifying the court (section IV) (because Jackson LJ believed it was unsuitable to adopt a "one size fits" all approach). However, these will be condensed into shorter paragraphs. New paragraphs on proportionality and settlement/ADR will also be introduced.

Proportionality: Where parties incur disproportionate costs in complying with any pre-action protocol or the Pre-Action Conduct PD, those costs will not be recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings.

ADR/Settlement: There will be a new provision that a party's silence in response to an invitation to participate in ADR might be considered unreasonable by the court and could lead to the court ordering that party to pay additional court costs. This change will reflect the decision in PGF II v OMFS (see Weekly Update 38/13) where the Court of Appeal held that a failure to respond at all to an offer to mediate will usually be unreasonable (unless, for example, ADR was "so obviously inappropriate" or the failure could be attributed to a mistake by the recipient).

Where a dispute has not been resolved, the parties should continue to co-operate by seeking to agree a list of issues and the necessary procedural directions for efficient case management during the proceedings.

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.