ING RE (UK) Ltd. v R & V Versicherung Ag

ING RE (UK) Ltd. v R & V Versicherung Ag

The defendant is not bound by the quota share treaty. The claimant could not reasonably rely on the documents as representations of Risk's authority to bind the defendant to the treaty. The September fax was not intended as a representation to the claimant, and the claimant did not know the identity or authority of its author. The defendant did not ratify the contract by its conduct, as its silence and inactivity were attributable to uncertainty, not adoption of the contract.

Parties
Claimant: ING Re (UK) Limited; Defendant: R&V Versicherung AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Ratification, Estoppel, Reinsurance Contracts, Agency Relationships
Contract Law Agency Law Insurance/reinsurance Ostensible Authority Ratification Estoppel Reinsurance Contracts Agency Relationships

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ING Re (UK) Limited

Claimant

R&V Versicherung AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is bound by a contract signed by an agent without actual authority on grounds of ostensible authority or ratification
  2. 2 Whether the defendant ratified the contract by its conduct after learning of it

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is not bound by the quota share treaty. The claimant could not reasonably rely on the documents as representations of Risk's authority to bind the defendant to the treaty. The September fax was not intended as a representation to the claimant, and the claimant did not know the identity or authority of its author. The defendant did not ratify the contract by its conduct, as its silence and inactivity were attributable to uncertainty, not adoption of the contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed