UK: Wasa v Lexington - The Repercussions For Reinsurers

Last Updated: 5 August 2009
Article by Joanne Jolly and Tracey Anderson

The House of Lords handed down its much anticipated judgment on 30 July. Its decision to allow the reinsurers' appeal and to refuse to accept Lexington's contention that the insurance and reinsurance contracts should be construed as "back to back" will be a popular one amongst many London market reinsurers conducting business in the US and equally proinsured jurisdictions.

The presumption that a proportional facultative contract should be construed as co-extensive with the underlying direct policy remains valid. However, this does not mean that a reinsurance contract which is subject to English law will be construed in a different manner from its ordinary meaning in the London insurance market in circumstances where, at the time of underwriting, there was no identifiable system of law applicable to the direct policy which could have provided a basis for a different construction.

The House of Lords found that the reinsurers, who had written a three year policy, were not liable for 30 years of damage despite the contrary conclusion having been reached by the Washington Supreme Court, applying Pennsylvanian law, in respect of the underlying insurance policy written by Lexington which provided cover for the same three year period.

The earlier Court of Appeal decision was controversial. It left many uncertain of their potential exposures, whether they had sufficient reserves in place and whether their own outwards protections would respond as previously anticipated. In essence, the Court of Appeal decision had meant that reinsurers were exposed to the same risk whether they had written the contract for three years or less, thereby emasculating the period provision in the reinsurance. The very real commercial difficulties with which London reinsurers were faced were recognised by the House of Lords.

Key facts

Lexington had insured Aluminium Company of America (Alcoa) under a property damage and business interruption policy for losses occurring during the three year period commencing 1 July 1977. The policy did not contain an express choice of law clause but did contain a standard US Service of Suit clause. Lexington obtained facultative reinsurance cover from, amongst others, Wasa and AGF, on the same terms and conditions "as original", including the same three year period of cover and a full reinsurance clause as follows:

"Being a Reinsurance of and warranted same gross rate, terms and conditions as and to follow the settlements of the ...Company..."

Although the reinsurance slip policy did not contain an express choice of law clause, it was accepted by the parties that English law applied.

In the 1990s, Alcoa incurred substantial clean up costs in respect of pollution, which had taken place between 1956 and 1985, at various of its manufacturing sites in the US. Alcoa turned to the Washington courts for a declaration of entitlement to insurance coverage for these costs. Some of Alcoa's insurers for the 30 year period in question escaped liability because of relevant exceptions or liability provisions in their policies and some because they simply could not be traced. Lexington was not so fortunate.

The Supreme Court of Washington, applying Pennsylvania law (as it was entitled to pursuant to the Service of Suit clause in the direct policy), held Lexington jointly and severally liable for all damage, including that which pre- and post-dated the three year period of cover specified in its insurance policy with Alcoa. It did so by applying a principle of construction previously adopted by a number of other US states for the interpretation of property insurance contracts and having is origins in the realm of asbestos claims, namely joint and several liability for the full amount of damage regardless of the amount caused during the express policy period.

Lexington was faced with an exposure of approximately $180 million but the parties ultimately settled for $103 million. This settlement was later accepted by the reinsurers to have been made in an honest and businesslike manner (it having been established by the Supreme Court of Washington that the entire claim fell within the insurance). The significance of this point was that the House of Lords was thereby not called upon to assess whether this aspect of the ICA v Scor1 test had been met. Instead, its focus was on the other proviso namely, whether, as a matter of law, the original claim was within the risks covered by the policy of reinsurance.

Facing this substantial claim from Lexington, Wasa and AGF declined to pay. Whilst they did not go as far as to contest that the US court decision was perverse, they did argue that the reinsurance policy was governed by English law and that, under English law, the period clause in a policy is a fundamental term which, in this case, would be interpreted as providing cover for three years, not 30. The English court of first instance accepted the reinsurers' case.

Court of Appeal judgment

However, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. It accepted Lexington's contention that the "back to back" presumption should be applied in cases involving proportional facultative reinsurance where the same or equivalent language is used in both policies. Following earlier cases (Vesta v Butcher2 and Groupama v Catatumbo3) the Court found that, despite the contracts being governed by different laws, the period clauses in both should be interpreted uniformly and in accordance with the Supreme Court's determination. Although the US decision may never have been anticipated by the reinsurers, the Court of Appeal considered that part of their bargain with Lexington had been to share the risk of an unfavourable development in the law.

The House of Lords judgment

The House of Lords decision should restore certainty and provide some comfort to London reinsurers. As mentioned above, the Lords accepted that the normal commercial purpose of proportional facultative reinsurance policies is to provide "back to back" cover with the direct policy and therefore the terms of the direct and reinsurance should generally be interpreted consistently. However, the Lords stated that, where the contracts are governed by different laws, then it remains a question of construction of both contracts as to what risk is assumed. There are no special conflict of laws rules which govern the consequences of any inconsistency.

The Lords noted that both policies were on a "losses occurring during" basis and that, under English law, this meant that the (re)insurer is liable to indemnify the (re)insured in respect of loss or damage which occurs during the policy period. It was common ground between the parties that, under English law, the three year period contained in the reinsurance contract would be interpreted as only covering property damage which occurred during the three year reinsurance period.

In his judgment4, Lord Collins observed that in 1977, when both of the contracts were concluded, there was no identifiable system of law applicable to the insurance contract which could have provided the reinsurer with the basis for construing the reinsurance contract in a manner different from its ordinary meaning in the London insurance market. This distinguished this case from the factual background to the Vesta and Catatumbo judgments cited by Lexington where it was possible to identify the foreign law which governed the insurance and in respect of which the reinsurers thereby had the opportunity to research how their reinsurance policies were likely to be interpreted.

Whether the Lords were solely influenced by this distinction seems unlikely. In both of those cases, reinsurers had argued that they should be relieved from liability because the original insured (rather than the reinsured) had been guilty of a breach of warranty. Such breaches had not been causative of the loss in question. The courts saw these as "technical" defences and had little sympathy with the reinsurers. In this regard, reference should be made to the Law Commissions' proposed reforms of insurance law. In this case, however, Wasa was a more obvious victim of the vagaries of an pro-insured judicial system.

The Lords recognised that reinsurance policies are increasingly the product of considerable market and legal expertise, the obvious implication being that the clauses contained in the reinsurance contract, including its governing law, are inserted for good reason. They noted that reinsurance contracts are separate legal contracts from the underlying policies and may contain independent terms requiring satisfaction before reinsureds can claim under them.

The Lords held that the reinsurance contract could not reasonably be construed to mean that it would respond to any liability which "any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States" would impose on Lexington, irrespective of the period of cover in the reinsurance contract. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision was to impose liability on Lexington under the insurance policy for loss and damage which occurred before, during and after the policy period in the reinsurance contract.

Examining the reinsurance from an English legal perspective, the Lords found that the application of the Supreme Court of Washington's judgment to the reinsurers would lead to "fundamental and surprising" changes in the ordinary understanding of reinsurance and of a reinsurance period clause, and create unpredictable exposures for the reinsurers. The Lords observed that, under the US court's approach, reinsurers must have incurred liability, up to the reinsurance limits, before the reinsurance policy period had even commenced.

The Lords stated that they did not agree that "full reinsurance" and "follow the settlements" clauses have the effect of bringing within cover a reinsurance risk that, on the true interpretation of the policy, would not otherwise be covered.

In summary, the Lords found no rule of construction, and no rule of law, that a reinsurer must respond to every valid claim under an insurance policy, irrespective of the actual terms and conditions of the reinsurance contract.


It is clear from the Lords' decision that they are not intending to usurp the presumption that proportional facultative reinsurance policies and reinsurance contracts should be construed as being "back to back". That remains the accepted starting point. However, the Lords were not prepared effectively to ignore the fact that the parties to the reinsurance had entered into a bargain on the basis of English law and had legitimately expected that the period provision in their contract would be given its ordinary meaning, not the (to English eyes) surprising interpretation arrived at by the Supreme Court of Washington. Thereby, the "uncommercial consequences" for reinsurers, referred to by Lord Collins were averted.

Nevertheless, going forward, London reinsurers are best advised to avoid too heavy a reliance upon the distinction afforded them by a different governing law in their reinsurance contract in circumstances where other terms and conditions reflect the underlying policy - particularly so where there is a risk of the courts considering their defences to be unmeritorious.


1 [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 312 (CA)

2 [1989] AC 852

3 [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 350

4 Paragraph 55 (6)

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

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

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

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