UK: HFW Insurance & Reinsurance Bulletin - November 2009

Last Updated: 10 November 2009


By kapil Dhir and Andrew Carpenter

On 18 September 2009 the Court sanctioned a transfer of insurance business concerning the affairs of the Commercial Union Life Assurance Company Limited ("CULAC"), CGNU Life Assurance Limited ("CGNU"), Norwich Union Life (RBS) Limited ("NUL") and Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited ("Aviva"). This has been a controversial case involving a long running dispute between Aviva and its "with-profits" policyholders regarding the payout from Aviva's "inherited estate" as it completed its reattribution process.

With-profits are savings schemes often sold as part of a pension or mortgage scheme. The funds invest in a broad range of assets and seek to provide a steady annual return, holding back some money in good years so that they can continue to pay out bonuses in the bad years.

Following the merger in 2000 between Commercial General Union plc and Norwich Union plc, the merged group, Aviva, engaged in a programme of rationalisation of its corporate structure. It proposed that the whole of the long-term insurance business carried on by CGNU, CULAC and NUL should be transferred under the provisions of Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA") to Aviva.

Policyholders contended that they ought to have had a much bigger slice of the inherited estate - the money which had built up in the CGNU and CULAC with profits funds - but instead, the Financial Services Authority ("FSA") had, they said, allowed Aviva to plunder the estate for the benefit of its shareholders. As a part of the transfer process FSMA requires that the Court must be satisfied that "in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to sanction the scheme". Norris J noted: "This does not require me to be satisfied that no better scheme could be devised; nor does it require me to assess whether the present schemes might be improved by further negotiation." He was satisfied with the conclusions of the independent expert that the security and benefit expectations of policyholders would not be materially adversely affected by the transfer. In addition, the FSA (which was represented at the hearing) was satisfied that the scheme was "within the range of reasonable and fair schemes available to Aviva to achieve its objectives, and that the transfers comprised in it are unlikely materially adversely to affect the interests of policyholders and other affected persons".

In the judgment, the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly regime ("TCF") was given plenty of airtime. Principle 6 of its principles for businesses states that "a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly". Indeed, TCF is recognised by the FSA as being "central to the delivery of our retail regulatory agenda" and "a key part of our move to more principles-based regulation". S.20 of the FSA's Conduct of Business Sourcebook requires a firm to give careful consideration to its operating practices to ensure that they do not lead to an unfair benefit to shareholders and lays down rules addressing situations where the risk of unfair treatment of policyholders is particularly acute, such as the cumulative effect of the annual decisions concerning the ascertainment of profit and the level of distributable profit to be attributed to policies.

Norris J concluded that the inherited estate is part of the working capital of and belongs to the company, not the policyholders. Policyholders have the right to participate in any annual profits that are declared and made available for distribution: they otherwise have only the hope that during the remaining term of their policy there may be an excess surplus that might be distributed.


The approval of the scheme is seen by many commentators as shareholders taking money that should properly go to policyholders. It is seen by some as a failing of the regulatory system – a weakness that has benefited shareholders to the detriment of policyholders and has therefore failed to treat the customer at all fairly.


By Geoffrey Conlin

Gard Marine & Energy v (i) Lloyds Tunnicliffe (ii) Glacier Re and (iii) AHP

Gard, a Bermudan company, made claims against its XOL reinsurers under two slips. The first was subscribed to by London market underwriters and the second by Swiss reinsurer, Glacier Re. The first slip contained an express English law and jurisdiction clause, the second slip had no such clause. A dispute arose about the governing law and jurisdiction of the Glacier Re slip.

The Judge held that Gard had established a good arguable case that English as opposed to Swiss law was the applicable law. The circumstances of the placement pointed towards a choice of English law: the underlying and expiring reinsurance policies were London market policies; the brokers were Lloyd's brokers; and the Lloyd's slip incorporated a number of English market wordings and provisions (e.g. "as original" and "follow" language). In reality therefore, this was a case of a Swiss reinsurer being asked to participate in a London market placement.

Could Gard found jurisdiction in England pursuant to Article 5(1) and/or 6(1) of the Lugano Convention, being the applicable regime between the UK and Switzerland?

  1. According to Article 5(1), a person may be sued in matters relating to a contract in the Courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question i.e. where the creditor resides. Notwithstanding Gard's residence in Bermuda, Gard contended that it was London market practice for brokers to pay premiums and accept claims and it was an implied term of the contract that claims would be paid to the broker in London. The Judge disagreed, holding that it was necessary to establish an obligation to pay claims to brokers in London as opposed to a practice and there was insufficient evidence of the practice to found the required implication.
  2. According to Article 6(1), where a person is one of a number of defendants, he may be sued in the courts for the place where any of them is domiciled, but the claims must be so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The Judge held that Gard's claims against its XOL reinsurers turned on the proper construction of the same clause, in the same terms, placed as part of a common reinsurance programme. This was enough to establish jurisdiction under Article 6(1), as the legal issues were identical and there was a real risk of divergence of outcome; the contingent claims against the broker provided a further connection.


The case is another reminder that an express choice of law and jurisdiction will minimise the risk of protracted and costly disputes on this issue.


By Edward Rushton

Erhard Eschig v UNIQA

This case concerned the interpretation of the 1987 European Legal Expenses Insurance Directive (87/344/EEC). The result in this case is likely to have significant consequences for legal expenses insurers who wish to rely on policy provisions to allow them to choose their assured's legal representatives.

The issue arose in the context of a class action against an insolvent investment company. Mr Eschig (and other policyholders) challenged the right of their legal expenses insurer, UNIQA, to rely on a clause in the policy which purported to allow UNIQA to appoint its choice of legal representative on behalf of an assured where it was one of a number of claimants bringing actions against the same defendant. Policyholders argued that UNIQA's reliance on the so called 'mass torts' clause contravened the Legal Expenses Insurance Directive, which protects the right of legal expenses insurance policyholders to appoint their own choice of legal representative. On the other hand, UNIQA claimed that the Directive should be interpreted more widely where the assured was one of a number of policyholders involved in a single class action.

The European Court of Justice considered the wording of the directive (in several languages) together with the directive's purpose, which was to protect the interests of Legal Expenses Insurance policyholders. It was therefore decided that the Legal Expenses Insurance Directive prevented UNIQA from appointing its choice of legal representative on behalf of Mr Eschig and other policyholders. Instead, UNIQA will probably have to indemnify its policyholders for the fees of their chosen lawyers.

The commercial impact of Eschig v UNIQA on the Legal Expenses Insurance sector is being hotly debated. In Britain, the sector has managed to bring down the cost of its products by developing ties with panels of specialised lawyers and negotiating discounted rates. This ruling could jeopardise this approach and, rather than being a victory for policyholders, could restrict insurers' ability to deliver affordable access to justice through legal expenses insurance.


By Saman Salimi-Pour

R and R Developments Limited v Axa Insurance UK plc

The claimant was insured with the defendant under a policy against theft and damage to contract works. In case of non-disclosure or misrepresentation of any material fact, the policy was voidable. There was a negative reply to the question in the proposal asking whether the assured company or any of its partners/directors had been declared bankrupt or were the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or voluntary/mandatory insolvency either personally or in connection with any business they had been involved in. One of the claimant's directors had been a director of a company placed into administrative receivership, which was still in receivership at the time the policy was acquired. This had not been disclosed to the insurers, who sought to avoid the policy on the grounds that this was a misrepresentation. The claimant's application for summary judgment for the grant of a declaration to the contrary was refused. The claimant appealed.

The principal point of the appeal was whether the question in the proposal solely concerned the insolvency of the assured/its partners/directors, or whether it included the insolvency of any other businesses that they had been involved in. The claimant argued that the court needed to consider if its reply was correct based on the reasonable meaning that could be given to it by the assured. The insurer submitted that the court had to construe the meaning of the question objectively and evaluate the assured's response accordingly.

The claimant's appeal was allowed. The court stated that insurance contracts were to be construed objectively and the assured's subjective interpretation of the question was not relevant in the absence of a problem with the actual language of the policy. In this case, the court's construction of the question was that it aimed to confirm the assured company/its directors/partners had not been declared bankrupt and were not at the time of the proposal subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. The court held that the assured had replied to the question correctly. It was understandable that the insurers asked the assured about the directors personal position arising from personal affairs or businesses which they had been involved in without going further and asking about the position of any companies as well. This literal interpretation was reasonable and commercially sound. The court also considered that as insolvency was not an insured risk under the policy, it was understandable that the defendant had not asked questions about other companies that the assured's directors had been involved in.


The case indicates that as the insurers draft proposal forms and policies and have control over their content, the onus is on them to make their intention about all the information they require clear. It also shows a growing trend by the courts in considering the "materiality" of the information requested by insurers when construing ambiguities.


By Saman Salimi-Pour

Westminster International BV v Dornoch Ltd

The claimant owners of a vessel involved in a collision claimed for the losses under a marine policy as they considered the vessel to be a constructive total loss based on the repair costs estimate received from the surveyors they instructed. The defendant insurers instructed solicitors, who requested another surveyor to comment on the surveyor's report obtained by the claimant. The defendant's surveyors estimated the repair costs to be considerably lower.

In February 2008 the claimants commenced proceedings to recover all the sums due under the policy. The claimant sought specific disclosure of the surveyor's report obtained by the defendant as well as the relevant correspondence with the surveyors in respect of which the defendant had claimed litigation privilege.

Tomlinson J dismissed the application for specific disclosure. In applying the test to assess whether the defendant was entitled to claim litigation privilege, the judge confirmed that the prospect of litigation in each case did not have to be greater than 50%, however it needed to be more than a mere possibility. The claimants appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld Tomlinson J's decision on the basis that the communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party were covered by litigation privilege if such communications were for the principal purpose of getting legal advice in light of a reasonable prospect of litigation. A statement from the defendant as to its state of mind regarding the dispute and instructing solicitors to act on the matter would not be sufficient per se to satisfy the requirements of litigation privilege. The onus of establishing privilege was on the party claiming it. This was a matter, which the court assessed based on the available evidence. The judge had been correct in application of the test as the difference in the estimates for the costs of repairing the vessel provided by the two surveyors was a contentious issue, which might have resulted in litigation. Therefore, litigation privilege applied.


We are pleased to announce the opening of our Sydney office on 1 December 2009. Since opening our Melbourne office in 2006, we have viewed Australia as integral to our international strategy. The growth of our Australian practice emphasises the desire of our clients to have legal advisers they can trust in the markets in which they operate.


US/UK Reinsurance Arbitration Seminar
(1 December 2009)

When arbitration is commenced, US companies usually operate under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). However, they can sometimes be called to arbitrate in England under the rules of the English Arbitration Act, where FAA-based strategies and tactics may be ineffective or counterproductive. Likewise, UK-based companies administering London Market business sometimes find themselves embroiled in US arbitration proceedings, where a different approach to the usual strategies and tactics is also required.

Jointly presented by Costas Frangeskides, Partner, Holman Fenwick Willan and Philip J. Loree Jr., Partner, Loree & Loree, this seminar will take a comparative approach and use case study examples to focus on the issues that a US or UK insurer may encounter in reinsurance arbitration on either side of the Atlantic, including:

  • Parties' expectations of neutrality in the arbitrator selection process
  • The arbitrators' power to consolidate proceedings
  • Choice of law clauses, including Bermuda Form
  • Challenging arbitral awards
  • Court support and interference

10th Singapore International Reinsurance Conference
Raffles City Convention Centre
(8-11 November 2009)
Andrew Dunn, Simon Sloane, Paul Wordley

13th Asia Insurance Industry Awards
In conjunction with 10th Singapore International Reinsurance ConferencePan Pacific, Singapore
(9 November 2009)
Andrew Dunn, Simon Sloane, Paul Wordley

RMIA 6th Annual Conference
Cairns Convention Centre, Australia
(22-24 November 2009)
Andrew Dunn, Richard Jowett, Gavin Vallely

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.