Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 SEPTEMBER 2009

Reinsureds Beware

“Lexington Insurance Company v AGF Insurance Limited"; "Lexington Insurance Company v Wasa International Insurance Company Limited” [2009] UKHL 40 confirms that where the laws of the insurance and reinsurance contract differ, it is no longer safe to assume that cover under a facultative reinsurance contract incorporating the terms of the underlying insurance contract will be ‘back-to-back’.

AustraliaInsurance

Lexington Insurance Company v AGF Insurance Limited; Lexington Insurance Company v Wasa International Insurance Company Limited [2009] UKHL 40 confirms that where the laws of the insurance and reinsurance contract differ, it is no longer safe to assume that cover under a facultative reinsurance contract incorporating the terms of the underlying insurance contract will be 'back-to-back'. The decision has implications for Australian reinsureds who reinsure in the London market.

Key Points:

  • A reinsured must establish its liability under the insurance contract and also that the loss is within the risk assumed under the reinsurance contract.
  • One interpretation of Lexington v Wasa is that where insurance and reinsurance contracts differ in terms of governing law, and the legal position on a term in an underlying contract is unascertainable in the jurisdiction governing the underlying contract, then that term is not incorporated into the reinsurance contract.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from