Excess Insurance Company Ltd & Ors, Re

Excess Insurance Company Ltd & Ors, Re

The scheme provides at least equivalent, and in most cases improved, security for policyholders compared to the status quo. The exclusion of the Guarantee does not materially prejudice policyholders due to its uncertain enforceability and the superior protection afforded by the capital injection and ADC Reinsurance. The scheme is fair and satisfies the statutory requirements for sanction.

Parties
Claimant: Excess Insurance Company Limited; Claimant: Hartford Fire Insurance Company, UK Branch; Claimant: Aviva Insurance Limited; Claimant/transferee: Hartford Financial Products International Limited; Regulator: Prudential Regulation Authority; Objector: ACE Policyholders (Century Indemnity Company and ACE Property & Casualty Company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Insurance Business Transfer Scheme Sanction / Final Sanction Hearing
Outcome
scheme sanctioned
Legal Topics
Insurance Business Transfer, Policyholder Protection, Regulatory Approval, Guarantee Enforceability
Insurance Law Company Law Financial Regulation Insurance Business Transfer Policyholder Protection Regulatory Approval Guarantee Enforceability

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excess Insurance Company Limited

Claimant

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, UK Branch

Claimant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Claimant

Hartford Financial Products International Limited

Claimant/transferee

Prudential Regulation Authority

Regulator

ACE Policyholders (Century Indemnity Company and ACE Property & Casualty Company)

Objector

Procedural Posture

Insurance Business Transfer Scheme Sanction / Final Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed insurance business transfer scheme should be sanctioned under section 111 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the Deed of Guarantee from the scheme materially prejudices policyholders, particularly the ACE policyholders
  3. 3 Whether the new protections (capital injection and ADC Reinsurance) provide equivalent or better security for policyholders

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme provides at least equivalent, and in most cases improved, security for policyholders compared to the status quo. The exclusion of the Guarantee does not materially prejudice policyholders due to its uncertain enforceability and the superior protection afforded by the capital injection and ADC Reinsurance. The scheme is fair and satisfies the statutory requirements for sanction.

Court Disposition

scheme sanctioned

Orders

  • The insurance business transfer scheme is sanctioned with immediate effect.