Conflict of laws

Prifti v Musini Soceidad Anoima de Seguros y Reaseguros (No 2) [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 221, a decision of Christopher Clarke J, is a sequel to the earlier ruling of Andrew Smith J in Prifti v Musini Soceidad Anoima de Seguros y Reaseguros [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 528. The earlier decision raised the question of whether parallel proceedings in Spain (between assured and reinsured) and in England (between reinsured and reinsurers) raised the same issues, a question answered in the negative. The sequel concerned the effect of the Spanish judgment on the English action. The Spanish football club, Real Sociedad, obtained from Spanish insurers, Musini, a policy which indemnified the club in the event of disabling injury to any of its players. The insurance was a front for London market reinsurers, and Musini retained only 2% of the risk. The reinsurance was in the usual facultative form, incorporating the terms of the original and containing a simultaneous settlements clause. The wording prepared by the brokers, who had acted at both the direct and reinsurance levels, provided for an exclusion of liability in the event that disablement was the result of a pre-existing injury.