UK: (Re)Insurance Weekly Update 4 - 2015

Last Updated: 9 February 2015
Article by Nigel Brook

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering

Court of Appeal confirms insurer's right of subrogation depends on underlying contract between the parties

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/16.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 32/13. The owners of a vessel had entered into a demise charter which provided that joint insurance would be taken out for the benefit of the owners and the demise charterers (with the premium being paid by the demise charterers). When the vessel became a total loss, the insurers paid and sought to bring an assigned claim against a third party to whom the vessel had been time-chartered by the demise charterers (based on the breach of a safe port warranty). That third party argued that the demise charterers had had no liability to the owners and so had no claim to pass on to it (and hence there was no claim for the insurers to be assigned to either). At first instance that argument was rejected by the judge and the third party appealed. The Court of Appeal has now held as follows:

(1) There had been no breach of the safe port warranty. The appeal therefore succeeded on that point.

(2) Although not required to do so, the Court of Appeal nevertheless went on to consider the subrogation argument because it raised "an important issue of principle". Clause 12 of the charterparty between the owners and the demise charterers provided that the demise charterer would pay for the hull insurance, which would be taken out in their joint names. The question then arose whether: "If a loss occurs as a result of a breach of contract or negligent conduct on the part of the party who pays the premium, can the insurer use the name of the "innocent" party to sue the "guilty" party once the insurer has paid for the loss?" The Court of Appeal answered this as follows: "Since insurance is usually intended to cover an insured for any breach of contract or duty on his part, it is generally thought that the answer to this question must be "No"; otherwise the party paying the premium has not secured the insurance cover he was entitled to expect". The Court of Appeal said that clear words to exclude that result were not required, so long as it was evident that the insurance was intended to be for the joint benefit of the parties.

The Court of Appeal also confirmed that it is vital to construe terms of the underlying contract between the parties (the terms of the insurance policy had not even been disclosed here), and that clear words were not required to exempt liability for negligence. If a contract requires a party to that contract to insure the parties, the prima facie position will be that the parties intended to look to insurers to indemnify them, rather than to each other.

Clause 13 of the charterparty had provided that the owners would pay for the insurance and expressly provided that insurers would have no rights of subrogation against the demise charterer, but that clause had been deleted by the parties. However, the Court of Appeal held that that did not mean that the fact that there was no such express waiver of the right of subrogation in Clause 12 meant that it must be possible for insurers to subrogate against the demise charterers.

COMMENT: This (obiter) Court of Appeal decision on subrogation in a co-insurance context once again focuses the inquiry on the underlying contract between the co-insureds and who they intended should indemnify any loss. In Tyco Fire v Rolls Royce (see Weekly Update 14/08) Rix LJ (again, obiter) did envisage that a co-insured might still be liable to another for negligence, despite the existence of joint names insurance (in the absence of express wording to the contrary). However, in this decision, the Court of Appeal held that "the prima facie position where a contract requires a party to that contract to insure should be that the parties have agreed to look to the insurers for indemnification rather than to each other". Further support for that prima facie position will arise if the insurance is in joint names for the parties' joint interest or where, as in the case of another recent Court of Appeal decision, Rathbone Brothers v Novae Corporate (see Weekly Update 43/14), the underlying contract consisted of an employer's indemnity to an employee. One further issue appears to influence the courts too: did the co-insured against whom subrogation is sought cause the loss in question, or was it in some way "blameworthy? If so, the courts appear to be more likely to allow a subrogated claim to proceed. Here, for example, the claim had not been for negligence but was "concerned only with the (contractual) safe port obligation in the demise charter" and it had not been the demise charterers' actions which had allegedly caused the breach of that obligation.

Western Trading v Great Lakes Reinsurance

Court considers reinstatement issues following fire at insured premises

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/103.html

This fire insurance claim was resisted by the defendant insurer on the grounds of lack of insurable interest and misrepresentation/non-disclosure. Both defences failed on the facts. The claimant sought a declaration that it is entitled to be indemnified for the cost of reinstatement. The property had been destroyed by the fire but no reinstatement had yet taken place and the insurer alleged that the insured showed no signs of planning to reinstate.

Insurance policies often grant an insurer the option of either paying the insured the value of lost property or reinstating the property. However, the policy in this case gave the insured the right to be indemnified for the costs of reinstatement. The policy also expressly provided that no payment would be made "until the cost of reinstatement shall have been actually incurred" and there was also a requirement that reinstatement be carried out "with reasonable despatch otherwise no payment".

However, Mackie QC HHJ agreed with the insured that where, as here, the insurer has wrongly denied liability and repudiated the policy, it cannot rely on the proviso that the costs of reinstatement will only be paid once they have been incurred, and there cannot have been an absence of "reasonable despatch". The judge, citing with approval an extract from MacGillivray on Insurance Law, held that a requirement to carry out reinstatement cannot arise until the insurer has confirmed that it will indemnify. Furthermore, that applies not just to insureds who cannot afford to pay for the reinstatement, but also to successful businesses: "Even a profitable business will reasonably defer a decision whether or not to reinstate until it knows whether the funding will come from insurers or will have to be diverted from elsewhere to the detriment of some other business activity".

The judge also rejected the insurer's argument that, since the policy had been avoided, the remedy for the insured was damages rather than a declaration. He noted that it is very common to grant declarations in an insurance case. Here, the claimant had an express right to be indemnified for reinstating the property and a declaration to that effect was appropriate here. Any dispute about what is, or is not, reinstatement could be resolved once it is known what form any reinstatement project will take.

Although not required to decide the point, the judge also held that, had he not granted a declaration, the claimant would have been entitled to recover as damages the cost of reinstatement. The value of the site before and after the fire was irrelevant (unless the claimant decides not to reinstate on this basis). Although the insurer would not have to pay if there is to be no reinstatement, the judge accepted the claimant's evidence that he did wish to reinstate.

COMMENT: The approach of the court adopted in this case can be contrasted with that adopted in the recent decision of Ted Baker v Axa (see Weekly Update 41/14), where the judge appeared to implicitly accept that the insured was still bound to comply with a claims provision even though insurers had rejected the claim. Here, the insurer could not insist on compliance with the reinstatement clause where it had wrongfully rejected a claim.

Monde Petroleum v Westernzagros

Whether the parties should arbitrate or litigate their dispute

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/67.html

The parties entered into a contract which provided for any dispute to be settled by London arbitration. Following a dispute, they entered into a settlement agreement which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts. The claimant commenced both court and arbitral proceedings and when the arbitrators found that they did not have jurisdiction to hear the case (involving the issue of whether the settlement agreement had been induced by misrepresentation), the defendant applied to court pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to challenge that ruling.

Popplewell J recognised the presumption (laid down by the House of Lords in Fiona Trust v Privalov (see Weekly Update 40/07)), that rational businessmen normally intend all questions arising out of their legal relationship to be determined in the same forum. He held that, although that presumption may have particular potency where a settlement agreement is reached: "Where the settlement/ termination agreement contains a dispute resolution provision which is different from, and incompatible with, a dispute resolution clause in the earlier agreement, the parties are likely to have intended that it is the settlement/ termination agreement clause which is to govern all aspects of outstanding disputes, and to supersede the clause in the earlier agreement".

Although that is the parties' likely intention, the language of the clause and other surrounding circumstances should be considered by the court. In this case, he concluded that the parties had intended the English courts to hear the case.

The judge also ordered security for costs to be provided by the claimant. The claimant's solicitors had offered to provide an undertaking, supported by a personal guarantee by the senior partner. It was held that that form of security was not as good as security by payment into court or provision of a first class London bank guarantee (the conventional forms of security), and so was not suitable. The evidence about the solicitors' (and partner's) financial position had been unsatisfactory.

PCL v The Y Regional Government of X

Service of an arbitration claim form and the State Immunity Act

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/68.html

An arbitration tribunal ordered the defendant (the government of a federal region with sovereign powers) to pay the claimant USD 100 million. When the defendant did not comply, the claimant applied to court pursuant to section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce the order. The claimant was given permission to serve the arbitration claim form on the defendant's solicitors. The defendant applied to set aside that order on the basis that service should be carried out in accordance with the State Immunity Act 1978 ("SIA") instead. This provides that any writ or other document "instituting proceedings" must be served through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Hamblen J held that the arbitration claim form did "institute proceedings": "Although the proceedings thereby instituted may be ancillary to existing arbitration proceedings they are nevertheless distinct proceedings brought in Court for the purpose of invoking the powers of and obtaining an order from the Court. The arbitration claim form is the document which institutes those proceedings".

Section 12(6) of the SIA provides that the claim form can be served in any other manner to which the State has agreed. Here, the defendant's solicitors had confirmed they were instructed to represent the defendant "in this arbitration" and that communications should be sent to them. The judge held that this authorisation covered only the arbitration and did not extend to service of documents relating to court proceedings connected with the arbitration. Section 12(3) of the SIA provides that a state "which appears in proceedings" cannot thereafter object that the service requirements of the SIA were not complied with. Hamblen J noted that defendants now enter an appearance by filing an acknowledgment of service. Although an acknowledgment of service was filed here, the defendant had also applied to dispute the court's jurisdiction and hence it could still insist on service in accordance with the SIA.

Accordingly, the order was set aside.

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.