Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Afghan Global Insurance Limited & Ors

Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Afghan Global Insurance Limited & Ors

The exclusion in clause 4.2 of the reinsurance policies applies to any loss directly or indirectly caused by seizure, regardless of whether the seizure was by a governing authority. The ordinary and natural meaning of 'seizure' includes forcible possession by any party, including the Taliban. The policies only cover property damage, not deprivation loss. There is no ambiguity in the exclusion clause, and no compelling factual matrix or market practice evidence justifies departing from its clear wording. Reinsurers are not liable for the loss of the warehouse, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd and the other claimants listed in Schedule 1 to the Claim Form (As Amended); First Defendant: Afghan Global Insurance Limited; Second Defendant: Anham USA Inc; Third Defendant: Anham FZCO
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (reinsurance/insurance) / Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for Reinsurers; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Reinsurance, Policy Interpretation, Exclusion Clauses, Summary Judgment
Insurance Law Contract Law Reinsurance Policy Interpretation Exclusion Clauses Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd and the other claimants listed in Schedule 1 to the Claim Form (As Amended)

Claimant

Afghan Global Insurance Limited

First Defendant

Anham USA Inc

Second Defendant

Anham FZCO

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (reinsurance/insurance) / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss of the warehouse by seizure of the Taliban is excluded from cover under clause 4.2 of the reinsurance policies
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion for 'seizure' in clause 4.2 is limited to acts by a governing authority
  3. 3 Whether the reinsurance policies cover deprivation loss or only physical property damage

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion in clause 4.2 of the reinsurance policies applies to any loss directly or indirectly caused by seizure, regardless of whether the seizure was by a governing authority. The ordinary and natural meaning of 'seizure' includes forcible possession by any party, including the Taliban. The policies only cover property damage, not deprivation loss. There is no ambiguity in the exclusion clause, and no compelling factual matrix or market practice evidence justifies departing from its clear wording. Reinsurers are not liable for the loss of the warehouse, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for Reinsurers; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration of non-liability under the reinsurance policies in favour of Reinsurers
  • Dismissal of the Second and Third Defendants’ counterclaim for a declaration of liability