As from 1/1 Amlin will be out of the credit insurance market (Source: FT).

While they only have less than 5% market share, it’s a further indication of difficulties in the sector, and perceived difficult times ahead for the wider economy.

CEO, Charles Phillips, said that while getting reinsurance for credit insurance was becoming more difficult, the underlying business is going to be tough to make money from in the longer-term.

This can’t be the last of this sort of announcement, and I suspect that the rising cost of reinsurance is going to become a growing feature of this renewal season. Of course, that is better news for reinsurers, though.

Related posts:

1. Hurricane cover shortfall This is what happens when you start meddling in...
2. Mexican rate hikes So it’s not just Florida that’s feeling the pain....
3. Softening conditions I was having a chat with a client of...

The City is getting to be a cold and windy place for many nowadays.

In homage, here is this Holga-ised shot taken from my office, with that Berlin-in-the-60s feel about it.

Brrrr.

Related posts:

1. Snowed under As usual, Britain — or more properly London —...

In the recent (24.10.08) case of Markel –v- Gothaer Allgemeine & Kontinentale the Commercial Court considered the nature and role of an agent in a dispute over a Claims Co-operation Clause. It’s an oddly fact-specific case, but there are some wider issues in play.

This was a summary judgment application by reinsurers (Markel) to dismiss a claim by the cedants (Gothaer and Kontinentale) in relation to an underlying claim on a D&O book. Markel’s basic case was that it was a condition precedent to liability that “the Reinsured shall upon knowledge of any circumstance which may give rise to a claim against them, advise the Reinsurers immediately, and in any event no later than 30 days”; that the cedant had known of the claim and had failed to notify the claim timeously; and hence Markel were entitled to decline cover.

The crux for present purposes is that knowledge.

Gothaer and Kontinentale were members of a German pool managed by VOV, a company incorporated by the pool members. This particular risk fell outside the pool guidelines, but Gothaer and Kontinentale agreed to write it if VOV could get them appropriate reinsurance. The contract was placed and the slip defined the “Reinsured” as “Gothaer Versicherungsbank VVaG and Kontinentale Versicherungs-AG as per VOV GmbH” (emphasis added).

That VOV knew of the circumstance was not apparently in issue, nor that technically there had been late notification. The debate was thus

1. “Is the definition of the Reinsured … an agreement between the Claimant [Reinsurers] and the Defendants [Reinsureds] that VOV would act as the Defendants’ agent for all purposes in connection with and relating to the Reinsurance?

2. Alternatively …, did VOV when receiving and giving notice of the…claim have ostensible authority to act as the Defendants’ agent for that and all purposes in connection with and relating to the Reinsurance by reason of the definition of the Reinsured in the Reinsurance?”

Markel argued that the phrase “as per” VOV was a definition of “Reinsured” and applied whenever the term was used in the reinsurance contract; and further that the only natural meaning of the phrase was that the Reinsureds were acting by VOV for all purposes connected with the reinsurance and that VOV was their agent for all such purposes.

Smith J did not agree. Indeed, he went on to say that the argument would have “absurd results”:

it would mean that the condition precedent was not triggered if the Reinsureds themselves knew of a relevant circumstance but VOV did not, and it would mean that the condition precedent would not be satisfied if the Reinsureds, not VOV, advised Markel of relevant circumstances. The Reinsureds would be in an impossible position if VOV ceased to exist or their business relationship with VOV otherwise ended during the currency of the reinsurance contract.

He also scotched a secondary argument by Markel that since the Reinsureds held VOV out as authorised to receive information on their behalf VOV’s knowledge was to be treated as their knowledge because of the ostensible authority thereby conferred on VOV.

The true issue, the judge said, was whether VOV as a matter of fact had knowledge of the claim in its capacity as the Reinsureds’ agent. But that was not before the Court on the summary judgment application, as you’d expect.

The main trial of the action is due to take place next month. I’ll be interested to see what happens.

Related posts:

1. KNIC wins case against London London Market reinsurers have ended their long-running Commercial Court...
2. Local authority insurance: Big News I just had a big win on a case...
3. Why ADR can be important in litigation ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is something that the English...

Legal 500 have named your scribe as a Leading Individual in the “Insurance & Reinsurance Litigation” arena.

Here’s the full list:

• Tim Akeroyd Elborne Mitchell
• Jane Andrewartha Clyde & Co LLP
• Martin Bakes Herbert Smith LLP
• Andrew Bandurka Holman Fenwick Willan
• Tim Brown Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP
• Steve Cantle Kennedys
• Colin Croly Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
• Susan Dingwall Norton Rose LLP
• Roger Doulton Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
• John Duff Holman Fenwick Willan
• Roger Enock Covington & Burling LLP
• Anthony Fitzsimmons Ince & Co
• John Hanson Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
• Tim Hardy Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
• Jan Heuvels Ince & Co
• Anthony Hobkinson CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
• Chris Jefferis Ince & Co
• David Kendall Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge UK LLP
• Anthony Lennox Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP
• Stephen Lewis Clyde & Co LLP
• Michael Mendelowitz Norton Rose LLP
• Nicholas Munday Clifford Chance
• Mike Munro Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
• Liam O’Connell CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
• Terry O’Neill Clifford Chance
• Joanna Page Allen & Overy LLP
• Raj Parker Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
• Jolyon Patten Halliwells LLP
• Michael Payton Clyde & Co LLP
• John F Powell Lovells LLP
• David Reston Herbert Smith LLP
• Peter Rogan Ince & Co
• Jonathan Sacher Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP
• Belinda Schofield CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
• Ed Smerdon Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP
• Rod Smith Clyde & Co LLP
• Stephen Tester CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
• David Webster Eversheds LLP
• David Wilkinson Dewey & LeBoeuf

Related posts:

1. And so farewell Colin Croly At least from Barlows. Word is that “Barlow Lyde...

Willis boss Joe Plumeri tells the FT that without serious (think $50bn-$100bn) catastrophe losses, it could be the end of 2009 or into 2010 before rates recover.
>”All the signs are that I don’t think the soft market is going to last a long long time . . . but it does not seem to be something that is going to end in a few months.”

he said (perhaps a little ungrammatically, but you get the drift).

This contrasts somewhat with some of the more optimistic reports I’ve seen coming out of Monte Carlo, but it seems more credible–rates are under pressure just as investment income is falling because of the global financial unrest. And we’ve already had a catastrophic first 6 months.

Related posts:

1. embracing technology At Monte Carlo, Dennis Mahoney, of AIG UK, lambasts...
2. Collapse in financial strength Canadian Underwriter reports today that financial strength in the...