“(c) loss or damage due to faulty design, defective material or casting, bad workmanship other than faults in erection; (d) wear and tear, corrosion, oxidation, incrustation.”
“Exclusion (c) to Section 1 of this Policy is abrogated in its entirety and it is expressly agreed that in respect of claims for loss or damage to the works where the cause is defective workmanship, material or design, the cover provided by the Policy shall include the cost of repair or replacement of insured items including rectification of such defective workmanship, material or design provided always that the property insured has been lost or damaged as a consequence of such defect. There shall however be no indemnity in respect of: a) the additional cost of introducing improvements or corrections in the rectification of the workmanship, material or design responsible for such loss or damage; b) the deductible stated in the Schedule in respect of every such claim.”
“Exclusion (d) of Section 1 is limited to the part of the items to be installed immediately affected and not to any consequences of such wear and tear, corrosion, oxidation or incrustation.”
“It is agreed that the cover granted under the General Conditions, General Exclusions, Special Conditions and Special Exclusions of this policy is extended to include Maintenance Guarantee for the period specified in the Schedule, to cover solely loss of or damage to the insured items, as per Section 1, resulting from faults in erection, faulty design, defective materials or casting and/or defective workmanship. .. The period of Maintenance Guarantee shall commence from the date of taking over indicated in the Taking Over or Provisional Acceptance Certificate and shall continue for a period of 24 months thereafter in respect of all insured items.”
“The liability of the Reinsurer [Generali] shall follow that of the Company [CIC] in every case, and shall be subject in all respects to all the general and special stipulations, clauses, waivers and modifications of the Company’s Policies, and any endorsements thereto.”
“TYPE: Construction Reinsurance. ….. REASSURED: Assicurazioni Generali SpA ORIG. ASSURED: Hydro Quebec, PCI, as principal and/or Societa Cavi Pirelli SpA and Pirelli Submarine Cables as Contractors and/or their sub-contractors and/or supplier as their respective interests may appear. …. PERIOD: From date to be advised until1st September 1997 as original. Extensions as original if required. LOCATION: Canada or held covered as original. INTEREST: Contract work for supply and installation of 3 28 KV EPR armoured power cables each 4.8 Km in length between the north bank of the St. Lawrence River and the Ile aux Coudres and 2,880 m on land cable cut into 15 sections. SUM INSURED: Estimated Contract Value CAD 7,008,082. CONDITIONS: As original: anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, this reinsurance is declared and agreed to be subject to the same terms, clauses and conditions, special or otherwise, as the original policy or policies and is to pay as may be paid thereon and to follow without question the settlements of the Reassured except ex-gratia and/or without prejudice settlements. Including deviation and/or change of voyage and/or extension of the original policy, as original. ….. HERETO: 80% PREMIUM: 2.5875% of FCV”
“The Court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if (a) it considers that (i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or (ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue; and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.” (a) it considers that (i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or (ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue; and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.”
“As original: anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, this reinsurance is declared and agreed to be subject to the same terms, clauses and conditions, special or otherwise, as the original policy or policies and is to pay as may be paid thereon and to follow without question the settlements of the Reassured except ex-gratia and/or without prejudice settlements. Including deviation and/or change of voyage and/or extension of the original policy, as original.”
“There are only two rules, both obvious. First, that the reinsurer cannot be held liable unless the loss falls within the cover of the policy reinsured and within the cover created by the reinsurance. Second, that the parties are free to agree on ways of proving whether these requirements are satisfied.”
“It is well settled that (subject to any provision to the contrary in the reinsurance policy) the reassured, in order to recover from their underwriters, must prove the loss in the same manner as the original insured must have proved it against them, and the reinsurers can raise all defences which were open to the reassured against the original assured.”
“The intention must, in my judgment, have been to bind [re]insurers to follow settlements even where the effect was that they could not dispute that there was in fact liability on the insurers under their policy with the assured. In my judgment, the effect of a clause binding reinsurers to follow settlements of the insurers, is that the reinsurers agree to indemnify insurers in the event that they settle a claim by their assured, i.e. when they dispose, or bind themselves to dispose, of a claim, whether by reason of admission or compromise, provided that the claim so recognised by them falls within the risks covered by the policy of reinsurance as a matter of law, and provided also that in settling the claim the insurers have acted honestly and have taken all proper and businesslike steps in making the settlement. This construction seems to me to be consistent with the approach of Mr. Justice Branson in Excess Insurance Co. v Mathews. In particular, I do not read the clause as inhibiting reinsurers from contesting that the claim settled by insurers does not, as a matter of law, fall within the risks covered by the reinsurance policy; but in agreement with Mr. Justice Bigham, I do consider that the clause presupposes that reinsurers are entitled to rely not merely on the honesty, but also on the professionalism of insurers, and so is susceptible of an implication that the insurers must have acted both honestly an in a proper and businesslike manner... Furthermore, in my judgment, if insurers have so settled a claim, acting honestly and in a proper and businesslike manner, then the fact that reinsurers may thereafter be able to prove that the claim of the assured was fraudulent does not of itself entitle reinsurers not to follow the settlement of the insurers. In my judgment, they must follow the settlement, as they have contracted to do;”
“The disputed payments were in respect of non-insured claims, which by definition were not within the scope of the reinsurance contract. They did not become insured, and therefore reinsured, claims merely because the syndicate agreed to treat them as if they were.”
“The principle stated in Scor’s case is unexceptional, but its application gives rise to difficulty where the terms of the reinsurance contract are the same as those of the underlying insurance contract, and the reinsurer has agreed to follow the settlements of the original insurer/reinsured. This difficulty was recognised by the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong in Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v Grand Union Insurance Co. [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 208. In the leading judgment, Hunter J.A. said this: Two points, I think, have to be noticed about these two provisos. The first, I have no doubt, was very carefully worded and deliberately limited to the policy of reinsurance. Mr. Collins argues that where, as is usual, the policy of reinsurance refers to the terms of the original insurance, the reinsurer can look through to those terms and complain, as was sought to be done here, of breaches of condition in the underlying policy. I reject that. If Lord Justice Goff meant that, he would in Mr. Justice Mortimer’s words “be nullifying the conclusion that he had already reached”