Insurance Law Monthly

The issue in Glacier Reinsurance AG v Gard Marine and Energy Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1052 was whether a reinsured domiciled in Bermuda could bring an action in England against reinsurers domiciled in Switzerland. The Court of Appeal, upholding the first instance judgment of Hamblen J, held that the English court possessed jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction should be exercised. A number of the issues raised before Hamblen J did not feature in the appeal, but they are referred to in the following commentary for the sake of completeness. The only reasoned judgment in the Court of Appeal was given by Thomas LJ.

Burton J in Sugar Hut Group Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc [2010] EWHC 2636 (Comm) discussed a series of defences raised by insurers under a property policy following damage to the insured subject matter by fire. Much of the ruling is factual, although there are interesting statements of principle relating to the construction of policy terms.

In Joseph Fielding Properties (Blackpool) Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2010] EWHC 2192 (QB) HHJ Wacksman QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, considered the circumstances in which a fraudulent claim, a failure to disclose a previous fraudulent claim and a failure to disclose previous breaches of the duty of utmost good faith entitled an insurer to avoid a policy.

The English and Scottish Law Commissions have, at the end of October 2010, published their ninth Issues Paper, on the need to retain the formal requirement in s22 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 for a policy document. This is a curious choice of subject matter for investigation, given that: (a) insurers have not for many years relied upon any possible defence open to them under s22; and (b) the Market Reform Contract now in general use in the London Market ensures that policy wording is available to the assured from the outset. The Issues Paper is nevertheless an interesting summary of the law.