UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - 20 August 2014

Last Updated: 29 August 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

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

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.

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
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions