The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Facultative reinsurance and the full reinsurance clause

Facultative reinsurance and the full reinsurance clause
Facultative reinsurance and the full reinsurance clause
The Full Reinsurance clause by which a reinsurer agrees to be bound by the same terms and conditions as the original policy and commits to follow the reinsured’s settlements is widely used in London Market facultative reinsurance contracts. In most disputes the outcome depends upon resolving the fundamental question of whether reinsurance is either a further insurance on the subject matter insured or is a reinsurance of the liability of the reinsured under the direct policy. The interpretation of the clause had not been settled until the recent House of Lords decision on Wasa International Insurance Co Ltd v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] UKHL 40 where their Lordships adopted the view that reinsurance is not a liability insurance but a further insurance on the subject matter insured by the reinsured. Settlement clauses are also widely used in the United States, albeit with wording slightly different from that of the full reinsurance clause but there is broad consensus in the US courts that the words ‘follow the fortunes’ and ‘follow the settlements’ are interchangeable. There are both similarities and differences between the two common law systems: in England the full reinsurance clause has to be express, whereas in the US there is a debate as to whether it may be implied; in England the nature of reinsurance remains unresolved, in the US the liability approach has been adopted; post-settlement allocations have created huge problems in the US but have scarcely been discussed in England; the US cases have not proceeded on the basis of incorporation whereas in England the scope of incorporation has been much discussed. These differences arise mainly from the understanding of reinsurance in the two systems, and the present thesis aims to explain these conflicting understandings by describing the relationship between reinsurers and reinsureds in the light of ‘as original’, ‘follow the form’ and ‘settlement’ clauses.
University of Southampton
Gurses, Ozlem
4bcc6f4f-968a-4b6d-9c7f-80e3a1df4336
Gurses, Ozlem
4bcc6f4f-968a-4b6d-9c7f-80e3a1df4336
Merkin, Robert
24964178-6170-4380-afb8-984a2764e54a

Gurses, Ozlem (2009) Facultative reinsurance and the full reinsurance clause. University of Southampton, School of Law, Doctoral Thesis, 228pp.

Record type: Thesis (Doctoral)

Abstract

The Full Reinsurance clause by which a reinsurer agrees to be bound by the same terms and conditions as the original policy and commits to follow the reinsured’s settlements is widely used in London Market facultative reinsurance contracts. In most disputes the outcome depends upon resolving the fundamental question of whether reinsurance is either a further insurance on the subject matter insured or is a reinsurance of the liability of the reinsured under the direct policy. The interpretation of the clause had not been settled until the recent House of Lords decision on Wasa International Insurance Co Ltd v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] UKHL 40 where their Lordships adopted the view that reinsurance is not a liability insurance but a further insurance on the subject matter insured by the reinsured. Settlement clauses are also widely used in the United States, albeit with wording slightly different from that of the full reinsurance clause but there is broad consensus in the US courts that the words ‘follow the fortunes’ and ‘follow the settlements’ are interchangeable. There are both similarities and differences between the two common law systems: in England the full reinsurance clause has to be express, whereas in the US there is a debate as to whether it may be implied; in England the nature of reinsurance remains unresolved, in the US the liability approach has been adopted; post-settlement allocations have created huge problems in the US but have scarcely been discussed in England; the US cases have not proceeded on the basis of incorporation whereas in England the scope of incorporation has been much discussed. These differences arise mainly from the understanding of reinsurance in the two systems, and the present thesis aims to explain these conflicting understandings by describing the relationship between reinsurers and reinsureds in the light of ‘as original’, ‘follow the form’ and ‘settlement’ clauses.

Text
Ozlemthesis - Version of Record
Download (939kB)

More information

Published date: July 2009
Organisations: University of Southampton, Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 210837
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/210837
PURE UUID: c8e5f454-cf89-41fe-9aa0-9cabd88165da

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 02 Jul 2013 11:04
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 04:50

Export record

Contributors

Author: Ozlem Gurses
Thesis advisor: Robert Merkin

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×