Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Commercial Court reinsurance judgment on excess erosion, follow-the-settlements, settlement conduct, and interest in a long-running RSA v Equitas dispute.
The Commercial Court refused OMEX’s application to set aside service, finding England was the proper forum for the reinsurance dispute and that English law likely governed.
Stonebridge Underwriting Ltd v Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange [2010] EWHC 2279 (Comm) (10 September 2010)
The Commercial Court refused OMEX’s application to set aside service out. It held England was the proper forum for a reinsurance dispute governed by English law.
Markel Capital Ltd v Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG & Anor [2008] EWHC 2517 (Comm) (24 October 2008)
Summary judgment was refused in a reinsurance dispute over whether a claims co-operation clause was agreed and whether VOV’s knowledge triggered notice.
The Commercial Court refused summary judgment in a reinsurance dispute over whether a claims co-operation clause was agreed and whether VOV’s knowledge bound the reinsureds.
AIG Europe (Ireland) Ltd v Faraday Capital Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1208 (22 November 2007)
The Court of Appeal held that AIG knew of a loss which might give rise to a claim and had to notify reinsurers within 30 days; late notice breached the clause.
The Court of Appeal held that AIG knew of a loss that might give rise to a claim, so late notice to reinsurers breached the claims co-operation clause.
The court held that AIG had no duty to notify Faraday until it knew of an actual loss, which arose no earlier than settlement on 23 March 2004.
AIG Europe (Ireland) Ltd v Faraday Capital Ltd [2006] EWHC 2707 (Comm) (31 October 2006)
The Commercial Court held that AIG notified Faraday in time under the reinsurance claims co-operation clause, and that reserves or share-price falls did not prove loss.
The Court of Appeal held that a reinsurance claims control clause excluded liability where reinsurers did not control settlement, and the follow-the-settlements clause was qualified.
Explore more
