GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD. v. J. H. MINET & CO., LTD.

(1942) 72 Ll.L.Rep. 48

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice Atkinson.

Insurance brokers- Breach of contract to insure - Negligence - Excess reinsurance issued by plaintiff company to Deutscher Luftpool in respect of "Flight and/or ground risks" to aircraft declared on risk- Cover from July 1, 1937, "subject to 60 days' notice of cancellation at any time"- Instructions given in October, 1937, by plaintiffs' head office to their underwriter at Lloyd's that all outstanding liabilities on their non-marine and miscellaneous business must be terminated - Notice of cancellation given to Deutscher Luftpool to expire Dec. 31, 1937- Plaintiffs still liable on declarations made before expiry date- Intention to reinsure such liabilities- Employment of defendants (Lloyd's brokers) to effect such reinsurance- Cover obtained by defendants with underwriters (R.W.R.) holding line on original reinsurance:- Assured: General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation. Period: Dec. 10, 1937, to Dec. 31, 1937. Risk: Excess reinsurance. Sum insured, interest and conditions: In respect of original policy issued to Deutscher Luftpool. Maximum Rm.500,000 any one loss, excess of Rm.250,000 any loss, as original. Hereunder 2% of Rm.500,000, i.e., maximum Rm.10,000 any one loss. Full reinsurance clause, excluding retention. 25% of total premiums received by General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation.

Claims by Deutscher Luftpool under plaintiffs' reinsurance policy in respect of accidents to aircraft happening after Dec. 31 but declared before Dec. 10- Claim by plaintiffs for indemnity from reinsuring underwriters (R.W.R.) - Repudiation of liability by reinsuring underwriters (R.W.R.) upheld in arbitration- Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages for breach of contract to insure- Alleged failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in effecting reinsurance- Dispute as to particulars of risk passed on by plaintiffs' underwriter to defendants- Duty of broker- Whether plaintiffs under and obligation to examine cover note to see whether instructions to insure had been properly carried out by broker.