King v Brandywine Reinsurance Co [2005] EWCA Civ 235

CA Waller LJ, Rix LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
March 2005

The first instance decision of this case was included in our update in July 2004 (now available from the archive or by clicking here). This was the appeal by the reinsured King, from that decision of Colman J, that the reinsureds were not entitled to be indemnified following settlement without the protection of a full follow the settlements clause.

The appeal was dimissed. The Appeal Judges , whilst having some doubt on the conclusion of the Judge at first instance on the proper construction of the seepage and pollution exclusion in certain of the outward retrocessions, nevertheless concluded that this made no difference and as clean-up costs were not covered on the true construction of the underlying policy, the reinsured could not recover.