Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors v Rolls-Royce Plc (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1869 (Comm) (21 July 2010)

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors v Rolls-Royce Plc (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1869 (Comm) (21 July 2010)

Rolls-Royce failed to show that Florida is the clearly more appropriate forum for the trial of the insurance dispute. The claim is by an English insured against predominantly English insurers under an insurance policy governed by English law. The main factor in favour of Florida—the accumulated knowledge and experience of Florida lawyers—was not decisive. Therefore, the application for a stay is refused.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1869 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC; Claimant: ZURICH INSURANCE PLC; Claimant: AVIVA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE LIMITED; Claimant: AVIVA INSURANCE LIMITED; Claimant: XL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Claimant: ACE EUROPEAN GROUP LIMITED; Claimant: AIG UK LIMITED; Claimant: CNA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Claimant: HDI-GERLING INDUSTRIE VERSICHERUNG AG; Claimant: PORTMAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Claimant: CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF EUROPE SE; Claimant: SWISS RE EUROPE SA, UK BRANCH; Claimant: AXA CORPORATION SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE SA (UK BRANCH); Defendant: ROLLS-ROYCE PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens, Insurance Coverage Dispute, Brussels Regulation, Parallel Proceedings
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction Lis Pendens Insurance Coverage Dispute Brussels Regulation +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC

Claimant

ZURICH INSURANCE PLC

Claimant

AVIVA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE LIMITED

Claimant

AVIVA INSURANCE LIMITED

Claimant

XL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Claimant

ACE EUROPEAN GROUP LIMITED

Claimant

AIG UK LIMITED

Claimant

CNA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Claimant

HDI-GERLING INDUSTRIE VERSICHERUNG AG

Claimant

PORTMAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Claimant

CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF EUROPE SE

Claimant

SWISS RE EUROPE SA, UK BRANCH

Claimant

AXA CORPORATION SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE SA (UK BRANCH)

Claimant

ROLLS-ROYCE PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should stay proceedings in favour of parallel proceedings in the US (Florida) court
  2. 2 Whether the Brussels Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 mandates the English court to exercise jurisdiction over the claim
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies in this context

Ratio Decidendi

Rolls-Royce failed to show that Florida is the clearly more appropriate forum for the trial of the insurance dispute. The claim is by an English insured against predominantly English insurers under an insurance policy governed by English law. The main factor in favour of Florida—the accumulated knowledge and experience of Florida lawyers—was not decisive. Therefore, the application for a stay is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • Proceedings in the English court to continue
  • No stay granted pending US proceedings