Goshawk Syndicate Management Limited and Others v XL Specialty Insurance Co

[2004] EWHC 1086 Comm
Morison J
May 2004

 

In a dispute between a reinsured and its reinsurers as to the effect of an annual aggregate deductible clause in the reinsurance policy, the Court looked once more at interpretation of clauses in reinsurance contracts in the light of the parties' intention that they be back-to-back with the original.

The reinsured, XL Specialty, covered a chain of clothing shops, a number of which were destroyed in the World Trade Center disaster in 2001. They sought recovery from their reinsurers, Goshawk, who refused indemnity for a number of reasons, including an allegation that an Annual Aggregate Deductible of US$5m contained in the policy had not been exhausted at the relevant time.

Under the original policy, XL Specialty were on risk in relation to large claims in excess of $1m arising from, amongst other things, damage to the insured's goods, even though the Annual Aggregate Deductible had not been exhausted.

Goshawk argued that the way in which the Annual Aggregate Deductible was drawn in the reinsurance policy differed from this underlying term. They argued that under the reinsurance, the Annual Aggregate Deductible had to be exhausted and it was common ground between the parties that it had not been. XL Specialty argued in turn that the reinsurance had to be looked at as a whole and the reference to "as original" made it clear that it was intended that the reinsurers were to follow the fortunes of the reinsured.

Although he admitted there was "an obvious tension" between the actual words used and XL Specialty's arguments, Mr Justice Morison found that the emphasis in the reinsurance was very much on creating a back-to-back arrangement and as such, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words meant that the reinsurers were under an obligation to pay.

The Judge acknowledged, however, that different Judges might take different views and immediately granted leave to appeal. A close call for the reinsured, therefore, and a good example of the need for absolute clarity in contracts intended to be back-to-back with the underlying.