UK: (Re)Insurance Weekly Update 25- 2016

Last Updated: 21 July 2016
Article by Nigel Brook

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

Connect Shipping v The Swedish Club: Whether notice of abandonment was given in time and whether certain costs were recoverable – of possible interest to marine insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/1580.html

Following a fire on board a vessel on 23rd August 2012, the owners contended that they were entitled to be indemnified on a constructive total loss ("CTL") basis. They gave notice of abandonment (NOA) on 1 February 2013. Insurers agreed that the owners were entitled to be indemnified, but only on a partial loss basis. They argued that the NOA had been given too late.

Section 62(3) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 provides that a NOA "must be given with reasonable diligence after the receipt of reliable information of the loss, but where the information is of a doubtful character, the assured is entitled to a reasonable time to make inquiry".

Knowles J held that the NOA had been given in time. Achieving reliable information of the loss would be a complex task and take time here: "Broadly speaking, it was not realistic to take one source in isolation; the presence of conflicting information from other sources threw the reliability of any one source into question. The assessment to be made was a major one for any person to make, if it was to be undertaken reasonably and responsibly. It is also important to keep in mind the difference between the calm of the courtroom some years later with the moving situation in Egypt at the time".

He also held that, although it is necessary to distinguish between knowledge of facts and the conclusions to be drawn from them, the task of ascertaining what repairs were needed (and how much they would cost) amounted to "facts" rather than "conclusions".

The judge also considered what costs would be included in the CTL calculation. Amongst other issues, he held that the cost of recovery or repair before NOA was given should be included in the calculation. The policies had incorporated the Institute Time Clauses – Hulls (1/10/83) and the Institute Time Clauses – Hulls Disbursement and Increased Value Clauses (1/10/83) and neither limited the cost or recovery or repair to after NOA (in reaching this decision, the judge departed from part of the decision in the "Medina Princess" (Helmville Ltd v Yorkshire Insurance Company Ltd) [1965]. There are therefore now two conflicting High Court decisions on the point).

It was also held that the owners could not have given a "protective NOA": once a NOA is accepted, the abandonment is irrevocable and binds the insured if accepted (even if the insured has not yet made up its mind on whether to call for a CTL).

The judge also held that the owners should be allowed a 10% contingency in respect of post-NOA repairs (rather than the 5% argued for by insurers).

Mitsui v Beteiligungsgesellschaft: Whether certain expenses were allowable as general average, after ransom demand was paid – of possible interest to marine insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/708.html

A vessel laden with cargo was seized by pirates and, following a negotiation of almost two months, a ransom was paid of USD 1.85m (the original demand was for USD 6 million). The issue in this case was whether the vessel operating expenses incurred during the period of negotiation are allowable in General Average. The bill of lading stated that General Average would be settled in accordance with the York-Antwerp Rules 1974. It was accepted that the ransom payment itself was allowed under Rule A of the Rules. The main dispute was whether the negotiation period expenses would be allowed as substituted expenses under Rule F.

Rule F provides that: "Any extra expense incurred in place of another expense which would have been allowable as general average shall be deemed to be general average and so allowed without regard to the saving, if any, to the other interests, but only up to the amount of the general expense avoided".

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had erred in concluding that the expenses were incurred in adopting a course of action as an alternative to (or in substitution for) one where the expense would have been allowable as general average. There had been only one course open after the hijacking of the vessel (ie negotiation to achieve the release of the vessel and cargo). Whether or not a ransom is paid on demand, there will still be a negotiation, delay and the incurring of running costs during the period of delay: "there is only one road open to owners.... It is a single track road with no forks in the road and it ends in the eventual ransom payment agreement. That there are no forks in the road is significant. Just as acceptance of the initial ransom demand is not a true alternative; nor is acceptance of any other ransom sum less than that initially demanded but greater than that eventually agreed".

Accordingly, the negotiation period expenses were not recoverable under Rule F.

The Court of Appeal further found that, had the expenses been recoverable under Rule F, they would have been reasonably made or incurred (and so allowable as general average under Rule A), in the event that the owners had paid the initial ransom demand without attempting to negotiate (ie had the owners paid USD 6 million). In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion in Masefield AG v Amlin (see Weekly Update 08/10) that "the most safe, timely and effective means of [securing the release of a ship and crew] is to pay as soon as possible. It may be that the general practice was to try to negotiate the ransom down, but that does not mean that it would be unreasonable to pay the ransom straight away so as to avert the very real danger to vessel, cargo and crew as quickly and effectively as possible".

Campbell v Gordon (Scotland): By a narrow majority, the Supreme Court rejects claim against director of a company which failed to take out appropriate employers' liability insurance

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/38.html

The appellant was employed by a company which failed to buy appropriate employers' liability insurance, in breach of its obligation under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. As a result the employee was unable to claim under the policy following a workplace accident. The company went into liquidation and the employee sought to claim damages against a director of the company for the company's failure to provide adequate insurance cover. By a majority of 3:2, the Supreme Court has now rejected that claim.

The employee had sought to draw an analogy with Monk v Warbey [1935], in which the Court of Appeal held a car owner (who had allowed an uninsured driver to use the car) liable in damages to a third party for breach of his statutory duty to insure. That argument was dismissed by the Supreme Court because: "there is no basis in the caselaw for looking through the corporate veil to the directors or other individuals through whom the company acts. That can only be done if expressly or impliedly justified by the statute".

Merchant International v Naftogaz Ukrainy: Court of Appeal decides whether security condition should be imposed on permission to appeal

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/710.html

The respondent sought an order (pursuant to CPR r52.9) that a condition be imposed on the permission to appeal (granted earlier by the Court of Appeal) that the appellant provide security for the full amount of the unpaid judgment debt (plus unpaid costs and the estimated costs of the appeal).

The Court of Appeal reviewed prior caselaw in which an application for security of the judgment debt as a condition of the appeal was made. It summarised the position as follows:

  1. A compelling reason is required to impose such a condition, and the court should exercise caution.
  2. The fact that judgment has been entered against the appellant, and no stay sought, does not in itself amount to a compelling reason.
  3. Each case turns on its particular facts, but a court is likely to find a compelling reason where the judgment debtor has previously taken steps to puts its assets beyond the reach of normal enforcement processes (or is likely to do so in the future). However, even if this factor cannot be established, there may still be a compelling reason if there are considerable practical difficulties in effecting execution.

Applying those principles to this case, the Court of Appeal agreed to impose the condition. The appellant was an entity against which it will be very difficult to exercise the normal mechanisms of enforcement. It has the resources both to mount the appeal and pay the judgment debt and so the appeal would not be stifled. Furthermore, the appellant had shown that it has no intention of honouring the judgment against it unless forced to do so, and would attempt to dispose of its assets to put them beyond enforcement procedures (although that factor alone would not have been enough to justify imposing the condition).

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the fact that this was an execution appeal (ie not against the judgment in favour of the respondent, but against an order made as part of the process of execution) did not justify the court adopting a different stance.

Purrunsing v A'Court: Interest after the date of acceptance should be excluded when deciding if a Part 36 offer has been beaten

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/1528.html

One of the issues in this case was whether the claimant had bettered its Part 36 offer. On the facts of the case, the claimant had only beaten the offer if interest was added to the offer from the expiry of the date for its acceptance up until the date of judgment.

CPR r36.5(4) provides that a Part 36 offer will be treated as inclusive of all interest until the date for acceptance expires (or 21 days have expired since the offer was made). HHJ Pelling QC held that "the only interest that is material is that included or deemed included within the offer". Interest accruing after the end of the date for acceptance up until the date of judgment was not to be taken into account when deciding if the offer had been beaten: "If it was otherwise then whether an offer from a claiming party should be accepted by a defending party would depend not on an analysis of liability in respect of the claim but what in many cases will be entirely unpredictable namely the date when a trial takes place and what is perhaps even more unpredictable, when judgment will be handed down".

COMMENT: This decision reaches the same conclusion as the Court of Appeal in Stephen Blackman v Entrepose (2004), which was decided before the changes to the Part 36 rules in 2007 (and in 2015).

Aqua Global v Fiserv: Court considers whether document can be redacted

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/1627.html

CPR r31.14 provides that a party may inspect a document mentioned in a statement of case. The claimant sought inspection of a document referred to in the defence (a licence agreement). The defendant wished to provide only a redacted copy of the agreement, on the basis that some parts of the agreement were said to be irrelevant.

Referring to textbook commentary, Chief Master Marsh noted that there is no difficulty in redacting a document which contains two or more distinct subject matters, only one of which is relevant (eg board minutes) or where a document lists the names of individuals whose identity is irrelevant. As stated in Documentary Evidence by Charles Hollander QC, "A distinction should be drawn between the blanking out of names and the blanking out of a separate part of a document. Where names are blanked out, it will usually be obvious to the other party what has occurred and why, and it will be open to the other party to make an application to court in case of dispute. But where part of a document is blanked out, it will not be apparent to the other party what has been blanked out and the other party may not have the basis of a challenge. So it is the solicitor's obligation not to blank out in such circumstances unless satisfied that there is an entitlement to redact".

In this case, the document in question was a single document referred to in the defence and so the starting point was that the claimant had a right to inspect it without limitation. Although the document contained commercially sensitive information, that could be protected by other means (eg an order under CPR r31.22 and an order preventing non-party access to the court file without the permission of the court). It was concluded that, although elements of the agreement were of only "marginal" relevance: "I do not consider, however, that redaction of parts of the document is either necessary or desirable. It is axiomatic that the meaning of a document must be derived from a consideration of the whole document. This is not a case which is analogous to the example given by Mr Hollander QC of board minutes where it is obvious that there are different subject matters".

Brown v BCA Trading: Court approves use of predictive coding where one party objected

http://go.recommind.com/hubfs/BCA_Trading_UK_PC_Order_2016_EWHC_1464_CH_5-17-2016.pdf

"Predictive coding" (also known as technology, or computer, assisted review), is a method whereby software analyses documents and "scores" them for relevance, and thereby reduces both the time and costs needed to complete an electronic disclosure exercise. Typically, the parties agree a protocol and a representative sample of potentially relevant documents is then obtained. A single, senior lawyer, who has mastered the issues in the case, will usually then consider the initial representative sample (marking it as relevant or not), in order to "train" the software to review the whole document set. Further statistical sampling by humans (usually taking at least 3 rounds) is then conducted to ensure the quality of the exercise. Once an acceptable level of accuracy is reached, the software then categorises all the documents.

Weekly Update 07/16 reported the decision of Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property, in which the parties had agreed the use of predictive coding, but had sought (and received) approval for this from the court. In this case, one party objected to the use of predictive coding.

Registrar Jones held that predictive coding should be ordered. He applied the various factors identified in the Pyrrho decision, and placed importance on the "extremely significant" costs saving (or around £120k, on a conservative estimate), although he noted that cost alone is not a determining factor. It must be shown that the predictive coding will be effective and achieve the disclosure required. That does not depend merely on the software used – it also requires the parties to identify what documents should be disclosed within the context of proportionality and the overriding objective. It was held that there was nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding could not achieve that (in the same way that a keyword search would).

It was also held that the lawyers must "identify by reference to the true issues, the anticipated categories of documents and to enter into discussions to minimise the work required". Accordingly, directions were given for the parties to "sit down before the predictive coding begins in order to discuss the criteria to adopt and the general process of disclosure".

AS Latvijas v Antonov: Applicable law for recovery of interest plus judgment debt interest

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/1679.html

It was held that the defendant had breached duties owed to the claimant Latvian bank. The issue in this case was which law governed the bank's claim for interest on its damages. Some breaches occurred pre-January 2009 and some occurred after that date. The breaches before January 2009 fell outside the temporal scope of Rome II and so the Private International Law Act 1995 applied instead. This meant that the existence of a right to recover interest was a question governed by Latvian law, but the English court's discretion to award interest is a procedural issue which is governed by English law. By contrast, Leggatt J held that the position under Rome II meant that the rate of interest recoverable on damages is governed by Latvian law.

The judge also held that for sums denominated in Euros, the appropriate commercial rate of interest should be 2% above the European Central Bank rate (and for damages denominated in US dollars, it should be 2.5% above 6 month US dollar LIBOR).

The Judgments Act 1838 provides that every judgment debt shall carry interest at a rate of 8% p.a.. However, the court has a discretion (under the Administration of Justice Act 1970) to award a different rate of interest if the judgment debt is expressed in a currency other than sterling. Leggatt J held that in this case, the appropriate rate should be 6% p.a. (the rate which a Latvian court would have applied). That was because: "I do not think it right that for any period while the judgment remains unpaid the Bank should be prejudiced by the fact that these proceedings have been brought in England because the defendant had re-located here after the Bank collapsed, rather than in Latvia where the Bank's losses were incurred and are being felt".

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 25- 2016

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.