Who Ended Up Footing the Bill?

Here is an excerpt from a article in the Telegraph (a UK publication) entitled "Lloyds Names face bankruptcy as court battle ends":

The group of 35 individuals face financial ruin just under a year after the Court ruled against their claim that they had been misled over insurance deals they bought into prior to the market's near collapse in 1992.
Their case, which will reach its final chapter in the Bankruptcy Court on Friday morning, began in 1996 when the world's largest insurance market tried to collect money owed by the Names – private individuals who agreed to take on the liabilities associated with insurance risks in return for any profits made from premiums – to cover very heavy losses incurred on asbestosis-related claims.

Although most of the Names paid up and agreed to a scheme to reinsure their debt, 1,200 refused. About 200 of this second group responded by launching a counter-suit for compensation, which claimed that Lloyd's brochures had led them to believe that the cover, called Reinsurance To Close (RITC), completely ended their liabilities at the end of each underwriting year.

The Names have since spent years battling against Lloyd's in the courts but the High Court ruled against them in July, a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal four months ago.

Sean McGovern, Lloyd's general counsel, said the ruling would help the market "close a chapter in our history".

However, speaking on Thursday, Christopher Stockwell, chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association, who was himself bankrupted in 1994 after the losses suffered in the insurance market, said the court case had been "devastating" for those involved.
"Many of the people involved in this court battle have died and others are now elderly," he said. "After today, we hope this torment will be over for those affected, meaning they are free to get on with their lives."
The bankruptcy hearing comes ahead of a separate court hearing on June 24, that would see Equitas, the vehicle set up to manage those liabilities that almost destroyed the Lloyd's market, transfer the last of its pre-1993 liabilities to a new company and boost its reinsurance coverage through Berkshire Hathaway.
Since Equitas was formed it has paid out almost $30bn in claims.
Hugh Stevenson, Equitas chairman, said: "This transfer and reinsurance will secure the position of the policyholders and mean that the Names will finally be able to walk away under English law."

:)
 
Thanks to you all for chiming in....I found further information that kind of answers what I was asking....the way they (the Lloyds names) tried to not be on the hook for all of this was to "recruit to dilute". By adding more names each year when those judgements were awarded, the names that just joined got roped into paying for a loss they never even intended to cover to begin with, not to mention that it happened decades before.
 
The MGM fire was an interesting case. They actually bought additional coverage while the fire was still burning.

Why? They knew the current coverage wasn't sufficient.

What did they pay? Basically, what the settlement was projected to be. I think it took a while to work this out.

Why would you pay the amount of the settlement? Why not just pay the settlement? Basically, they could pass the legal defense costs off to the insurer, which was a significant expense. The prmary carrier was just going to write a check and not defend since any settlement would go right through their coverage.

The only reason I can figure out the insurance company took the risk is because they got the money today for a settlement that would be years out. They already had attorneys on staff, and were hoping they could settle for less than the initial projection. I have no idea how it worked out.

Dan
 
The MGM fire was an interesting case. They actually bought additional coverage while the fire was still burning.

Why? They knew the current coverage wasn't sufficient.

What did they pay? Basically, what the settlement was projected to be. I think it took a while to work this out.

Why would you pay the amount of the settlement? Why not just pay the settlement? Basically, they could pass the legal defense costs off to the insurer, which was a significant expense. The prmary carrier was just going to write a check and not defend since any settlement would go right through their coverage.

The only reason I can figure out the insurance company took the risk is because they got the money today for a settlement that would be years out. They already had attorneys on staff, and were hoping they could settle for less than the initial projection. I have no idea how it worked out.

Dan

Thanks. That was sort of my assumption about the insurance company's perspective. I didn't think about the legal defense, that was probably a large expense that the casino got to avoid.

That must be a completely different world to work in those markets. I would assume it is very profitable and extremely stressful.
 
The only reason I can figure out the insurance company took the risk is because they got the money today for a settlement that would be years out. They already had attorneys on staff, and were hoping they could settle for less than the initial projection.

That is exactly why they write retroactive coverage.

Might be years before they pay and hope to settle for less than the premium.
 
Back
Top