“There was some debate about whether the question of the application of the aggregation clause was to be viewed from the perspective of the investors or the solicitors. The answer is that the application of the clause is to be judged not by looking at the transactions exclusively from the viewpoint of one party or another party, but objectively taking the transactions in the round”
“Where property excess of loss covers are concerned the main function of the ‘any one event’ provision is to serve as an aggregating factor. … [T]he question therefore resolves itself into one of determining what can be said to constitute an ‘event’, within the terms of the reinsurance treaty, to permit the aggregation of losses for the purpose of claiming against the reinsurer. However, while the matter is obviously one of considerable importance, the forms of wording most commonly used up to 1963 simply provided coverage for all losses resulting from ‘any one event’. The uncertainty surrounding the permitted aggregation under such policies came to a head in the severe winter of 1962/1963 in the British Isles, when reinsureds were faced with a large number of water damage claims arising as a result of burst water pipes following the thaw. In these circumstances reinsureds argued against their reinsurers that the severe weather conditions constituted either one or, bearing in mind the partial thaw that took place in January 1963, two ‘events’, thereby entitling them to aggregate together all water damage losses as well as any other weather-related losses for the purpose of claims on excess of loss catastrophe covers. Reinsurers for their part resisted these claims on the basis that bad weather constituted a state of affairs rather than an ‘event’ so that a broad aggregation of losses was not permissible. Eventually, all claims were compromised, but the need for some form of standardised wording was recognised. Ultimately, as a result of the work of various market committees, a standard form of wording - LPO 98 - which contained a standard ‘hours’ clause, came to be widely used. The clause was not universally accepted, but formed the basis for most of the alternative wordings adopted by reinsurers. The essence of the clause as originally drafted was to provide for the aggregation of ‘loss occurrences’ arising out of and directly occasioned by ‘one catastrophe’. ‘Loss occurrences’ were defined in terms of losses occurring within specified periods of time, which were seventy-two hours for listed phenomena and 168 hours for all other catastrophes. It will be noted that the word ‘event’ was abandoned in favour of the word “catastrophe” to make it clear that the intention was to cover happenings that were short, sharp and devastating; this indeed was historically the correct analysis of catastrophe covers, which are commonly believed to have originated after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. In the result, then, all losses occurring within the relevant periods of hours and stemming from one catastrophe were to be aggregated ….”
“It will be interesting to see in the years ahead if arbitrators and the Courts interpret the words in the way in which they were intended.”
“because we felt it was more specific. It implied a violent happening which in itself caused damage. The word ‘event’ we felt might have applied to something which might have been the cause of a catastrophe rather than the catastrophe or disaster itself.”
“The hope that LPO 98 would remove the possibility of disputes over claims as had occurred in 1963 was dashed in the aftermath of the unusually hard winter of 1978/1979, which again witnessed a large number of water damage claims against reinsureds. While it had been difficult for reinsureds to argue in 1962/1963 that the severe weather constituted an ‘event’ for the purposes of a catastrophe cover, it became even more tenuous to allege that severe weather was a ‘catastrophe’ within the meaning of the new wording. Undaunted, reinsureds advanced the alternative theory that, because they had suffered catastrophic losses as a result of the weather, the event which had caused those losses - the cold winter - could itself correctly be described as a ‘catastrophe’. This line of argument neatly reversed the process actually called for by the clause: instead of having to identify a catastrophe out of which losses had arisen for the purpose of aggregating those losses, it was being suggested that the totality of the losses was itself a catastrophe. Apart from this fundamental analytical flaw in the argument in favour of reinsureds, it suffered from the weakness that the losses incurred by reinsureds had not threatened their solvency - irrespective of reinsurance cover - and thus could scarcely be described as catastrophic. Moreover, the causative requirement that losses had to be ‘directly occasioned’ by the catastrophe was hardly met by the cold weather; the direct cause was clearly the thaw, but it is by no means clear that a natural phenomenon which is regarded as beneficial by the community as a whole can be taken to be a catastrophe for reinsurance purposes. However, despite these important considerations, the reinsurers chose to pay. The reaction to all this, compounded by heavy losses in the North American continent, was the introduction of the LPO 98 Amended Hours Clause, which accepted that winter losses were recoverable and provided aggregate extension cover to deal with such losses. Soon afterwards, the wording of LPO 98 as amended was referred to a London market committee for its consideration, and the committee produced in the place of LPO 98 two new articles, based broadly on the old wording. These articles were themselves subsequently revised by the now current LIRMA property catastrophe excess of loss clauses, which read as follows: ‘For the purposes of this Agreement a loss occurrence shall consist of all individual insured losses which are the direct and immediate result of the sudden violent physical operation of one and the same manifestation of an original insured peril and occur during a loss period of 72 consecutive hours as regards any: (a) hurricane, typhoon, windstorm, rainstorm, hailstorm or tornado; (b) earthquake, seaquake, tidal wave or volcanic eruption; (c) fire; (d) riot or civil commotion which occurs within the limits of one city, town or village; or (e) 168 hours as regards all other insured perils. Provided that if any such aforementioned operation and physical manifestation shall directly and immediately result in the physical manifestation of another original insured peril or perils, then all individual insured losses which directly and immediately result therefrom and occur during the same loss period of 168 consecutive hours or 72 consecutive hours where any of the perils mentioned in (a) (b) (c) and (d) are involved shall be deemed to constitute a single loss occurrence. The reinsured may choose the date and time when the appropriate loss period commences provided that no such period shall commence earlier than the time of the first recorded individual insured loss to which this Agreement applied resulting from the operation and manifestation of an original insured peril as aforesaid and if the operation of such a peril shall last longer than the appropriate loss period then the reinsured may apply further appropriate loss periods in respect of the continued operation of that peril provided none of those additional periods shall overlap.’ The effect of this wording is to define a ‘loss occurrence’ as the aggregate of all individual losses insured by the reinsured and occurring within a period of either 72 or 168 consecutive hours, as the case may be. Thus, in the case of an earthquake, the loss occurrence is damage to all properties in a specified geographical location occurring within a period of 72 consecutive hours. The wording gives the reinsured the right to decide when a loss period is to commence, but the earliest date that may be adopted is the date at which the first individual loss has become manifest. The wording also makes it clear that catastrophe cover is concerned with sudden violent events that cause damage over a period of time, rather than protracted events more accurately described as a state of affairs, such as cold weather. Where a violent event takes place over a prolonged period, such as a hurricane, the “hours” clause has the effect of dividing the resulting individual losses caused into a series of loss occurrences each of which constitutes an aggregating factor. The problem of consequential physical damage is specifically addressed in the clause. The type of problem that could arise is where a natural event, such as an earthquake or a typhoon, causes damage to electrical cable and results in a fire. The second paragraph of the clause specifies that such direct and immediate consequential loss falling within the same period is to be treated as part of the original loss occurrence. Indirect consequential losses, for example where electricity cables are blown down following a storm and a fire results at a later date when an attempt is made to restore the electricity supply, will be excluded from the reinsurance cover on normal causation grounds.”
“When a Reassured wishes to protect his insurance account or his reinsurance account, he has basically three options: (a) To take out a quota share reinsurance on his business. To do this, he pays a pro rata share of his premiums and receives a pro rata share of premiums and receives a pro rata share of all claims and expenses. (b) To take out an aggregate reinsurance to protect his business from a series of losses. This costs much less premium. (c) To take out an excess of loss contract to pay him if he suffers either a large individual loss or a series of losses arising out of some contingency. The contingency being a catastrophe, an accident an event or whatever. For this the premium he pays is much less than the quota share and much less than the aggregate premium (for a comparable limit and deductible). The Reassured has a choice and gets what he paid for.”
“a loss occurrence shall consist of all individual insured losses which are the direct and immediate result of the sudden violent physical operation of one and the same manifestations of the individual insured peril”
“ < Greek καταστροϕή overturning, sudden turn, conclusion, < κατα-στρέϕειν to overturn, etc., < κατά down + στρέϕειν to turn”
“1 The change or revolution which produces the conclusion or final event of a dramatic piece’ (Johnson); the dénouement”. 2(a) A final event; a conclusion generally unhappy’ (Johnson); a disastrous end, finish-up, conclusion, upshot; overthrow, ruin, calamitous fate.” 3(a) An event producing a subversion of the order or system of things. 3(b) esp. in Geology. A sudden and violent change in the physical order of things, such as a sudden upheaval, depression, or convulsion affecting the earth's surface, and the living beings upon it, by which some have supposed that the successive geological periods were suddenly brought to an end. (Cf. cataclysm n., catastrophism n.) 4 A sudden disaster, wide-spread, very fatal, or signal. (In the application of exaggerated language to misfortunes it is used very loosely.)”
“[T]he meaning of general words, even ‘whatsoever’, may be limited by the context in which they appear. They may be used to refer to a class or category, a genus (or what Mr Pollock called a tribe) of which some but not necessarily all the members are identified in the clause.”
“A number of parties submitted that it was not necessary that in order for an event to be characterised as a catastrophe it must involve an element of suddenness. That submission sits quite uncomfortably with the above dictionary definitions and those matters which might ordinarily be regarded as catastrophes: volcanic eruption, substantial explosion, earthquake, conflagration, tidal wave, a major deadly gas leak from a factory, cyclone, or hurricane. These examples support the necessity for a catastrophe to be sudden, or, at the very least, for it to have a commencement which is relatively certain in time and tend to eschew the inclusion of a state of affairs which emerges relatively slowly or progressively over time.”
“In ordinary speech, an event is something which happens at a particular time, at a particular place, in a particular way. I believe that this is how the Court of Appeal understood the word. A cause is to my mind something altogether less constricted. It can be a continuing state of affairs; it can be the absence of something happening. Equally, the word “originating” was in my view consciously chosen to open up the widest possible search for a unifying factor in the history of the losses which it is sought to aggregate. To my mind the one expression has a much wider connotation than the other.”
“the outbreak of Covid-19 in the United Kingdom, reflected in an exponential increase in the number of infections during a period up to and including18 March 2020 , was a ‘catastrophe’ within the meaning of Condition 2(1).”
“A disease that spreads is not something that occurs at a particular time and place and in a particular way: it occurs at a multiplicity of different times and places and may occur in different ways involving differing symptoms of greater or less severity. Nor for that matter could an ‘outbreak’ of disease be regarded as one occurrence, unless the individual cases of disease described as an “outbreak” have a sufficient degree of unity in relation to time, locality and cause. If several members of a household were all infected with Covid-19 when a carrier of the disease visited their home on a particular day, that might arguably be described as one occurrence. But the same could not be said of the contraction of the disease by different individuals on different days in different towns and from different sources. Still less could it be said that all the cases of Covid-19 in England (or in the United Kingdom or throughout the world) which had arisen by any given date in March 2020 constituted one occurrence. On any reasonable or realistic view, those cases comprised thousands of separate occurrences of Covid-19. Some of those occurrences of the disease may have been within a radius of 25 miles of the insured premises whereas others undoubtedly will not have been. The interpretation which makes best sense of the clause, in our view, is to regard each case of illness sustained by an individual as a separate occurrence. On this basis there is no difficulty in principle and unlikely in most instances to be difficulty in practice in determining whether a particular occurrence was within or outside the specified geographical area.” ii. In Stonegate Pub Company v MS Amlin Corporate Member Limited[2022] EWHC 2548 (Comm) , [179] again in the context of direct insurance, Mr Justice Butcher held that the decision at the COBR meeting on16 March 2020 to advise the public to avoid pubs, restaurants and clubs was an occurrence: “In the present case, I regard the decision taken at the COBRA meeting on16 March 2020 that the public should be advised to avoid pubs, restaurants and clubs as being an occurrence. It satisfied the unities. There is, to my mind, nothing in the context of the Policy which indicates that such a decision cannot count as an occurrence. Judging the matter from the perspective of an informed observer in the position of the insured, it is to be regarded as a single occurrence.”
“The various governments’ advice and instructions to close schools and nurseries during the period 18 to 20 March may only be viewed as incidents in an overall catastrophe if they are regarded as essentially indivisible from the underlying catastrophe to which they were a response.”
“In the ordinary case of a catastrophe, (e.g. a hurricane) the entire physical damage and BI losses occur on the same day. The duration of the subsequent BI period is a function of and is controlled by the severity of the physical damage. Accordingly even if the physical damage were never to be repaired, the BI loss could still be estimated and assessed from the physical damage which had taken place. In the more usual situation where repairs do occur, the BI loss can be quantified more precisely from the actual experience.”
“[69] I should, however, clarify that I do not accept Stonegate's case that there would have been multiple ‘triggers’ in the case of an Insured Location which once closed stayed closed but where the closure was enforced by the reiteration, continuation or renewal of regulations which were, materially, to the same effect. The ‘trigger’ is the enforced closure and, in my view, there will be one such ‘trigger’ unless and until the Location opens and is then closed again. … [73] I should also add that, in keeping with the submission of Allianz in the VE Action, I consider that the number of Covered Events would be the number of occasions on which there were materially different restrictions imposed or advised by government or a relevant agency which prevented or hindered the use of or access to ‘Insured Locations’. Steps taken or advice given by Government or a relevant agency which merely repeated or renewed an existing prevention or hindrance of access would, in my view, form part of one set of ‘actions or advice’ and thus constitute one Covered Event.”
"[67] … In my view the correct construction of the Policy is that there is a Covered Event when, in the case of Enforced Closure, there is an enforced closure of an Insured Location within the Period of Insurance, ie, if the closure takes place within the Period of Insurance. There could then be recovery for the resulting interruption and interference with the business, and the extent of that interruption or interference would depend on how long the closure lasted, irrespective of whether the whole period of such closure was within or after the Period of Insurance. Similarly in relation to Prevention of Access, if there are actions or advice which have, within the Period of Insurance, the effect of preventing or hindering the use of or access to Insured Locations, then there is cover for any resulting interruption or interference, and the extent of that interruption or interference would depend on how long the prevention or hindrance lasted, and the Clause does not require any period of such prevention or hindrance after the Period of Insurance to be disregarded. … [69] I consider that the construction for which Allianz contends would produce uncommercial and unintended consequences. It would mean, for example, that if an Insured Location were the subject of enforced closure on the last day of the Period of Insurance, and remained closed for a week, the only cover under the Policy would be for the consequence of the first day of closure. While on Allianz's contention, the remainder of the period of closure would fall within the next policy year, it would be quite possible, indeed probable, that insurers for the next year would exclude cover for an already subsisting closure / prevention or hindrance. .. More generally, Allianz's construction would mean that these two Insuring Clauses provided cover in a markedly different manner from how other Insuring Clauses would cover similar situations. For example, if there were a fire at an Insured Location during the Period of Insurance, and it led to the closure of an Insured Location for a significant period beyond the end of the Period of Insurance, then the entirety of that closure, up to the end of the MIP, would be relevant interruption or interference. But on Allianz's case, if there was an enforced closure for health reasons before the end of the Period of Insurance, no part of the closure after the end of the Period of Insurance would be relevant interruption or interference. I consider that to be paradoxical, and reinforces me in my view as to how the two Insuring Clauses would reasonably be understood."
“The function of the Insuring Clauses is to identify the Covered Events under the policy. The relevant Covered Event is a Prevention of Access or an enforced closure occurring during the Period of Insurance, that is to say between29th September 2019 and28th September 2020 . A prevention or enforced closure occurring on1st September 2020 is such a Covered Event because it occurs during the Period of Insurance. Accordingly VE is entitled to recover the Business Interruption Loss proximately caused by that Covered Event, even if that loss extends beyond the Period of Insurance, subject only to the longstop that the Maximum Indemnity Period in the policy schedule is 12 (or in the case of some restaurants, 24) months.”
“214 [T]he hybrid and prevention of access clauses specify more than one condition which must be satisfied in order to establish that business interruption loss has been caused by an insured peril. Furthermore, the structure of these clauses is that the elements of the clause are required to operate in a causal sequence. A good example is the public authority clause in Hiscox 1–3 (set out more fully at para 111 above), which covers financial losses “ resulting solely and directly from an interruption to your activities caused by … your inability to use the insured premises due to restrictions imposed by a public authority during the period of insurance following … an occurrence of any human infectious or human contagious disease, an outbreak of which must be notified to the local authority” (our emphasis). 215 The first of these causal links—between financial losses and an interruption to the policyholder's activities—is of less significance than the others. That is because, although the FCA has suggested otherwise, we think it clear that the interruption is not part of the description of the insured peril. The concept of business interruption in insurance of this kind was in our view correctly analysed by Mr Simon Salzedo QC in his submissions on behalf of Argenta. It is a description of the type of loss or damage covered by the policy, in the same way as the type of loss or damage covered by, for example, a buildings insurance policy is physical destruction or damage. Thus, in a buildings insurance policy, unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is liable for the contractual measure of (i) destruction of or physical damage to the insured buildings, which is (ii) proximately caused by (iii) a peril insured against under the policy (such as fire, storm etc). In business interruption insurance an interruption to the policyholder's business or activities is the counterpart of the first of these elements. It describes the nature of the harm to the policyholder's interest in the subject matter of the insurance for which an indemnity is given if it is proximately caused by an insured peril.” 216. In the Hiscox clause quoted above the first causal link is therefore concerned with the pecuniary measure of the interruption caused by an insured peril. Nevertheless, the peril covered by the clause is itself a composite one comprising elements that are required to occur in a causal sequence in order to give rise to a right of indemnity. Setting out the elements of the insured peril in their correct causal sequence, they are: (A) an occurrence of a notifiable disease, which causes (B) restrictions imposed by a public authority, which cause (C) an inability to use the insured premises, which causes (D) an interruption to the policyholder's activities that is the sole and direct cause of financial loss. Counsel for Hiscox in their submissions on this issue usefully represented the structure of the clause in a symbolic form as A→B→C→D, where each arrow represents a causal connection.”
“(A) an occurrence of a notifiable disease, which causes (B) restrictions imposed by a public authority, which cause (C) an inability to use the insured premises, which causes (D) an interruption to the policyholder's activities that is the sole and direct cause of financial loss.”
“(A) a hurricane which causes (B) physical damage to the insured premises, which causes (C) an inability to use the insured premises, which causes (D) an interruption to the policyholder's activities that is the sole and direct cause of financial loss.”
“In the specimen UK business interruption specifications included in the appendices, the definition of the indemnity period reads: ‘[t]he period beginning with the occurrence of the Incident and ending not later than the Maximum Indemnity Period thereafter during which the results of the Business shall be affected in consequence thereof” and is completed by a definition of the maximum indemnity period which simply states the number of months selected. This dual definition is an example of the careful drafting which applies throughout the specification to express the exact intention of the insurers. It is important to note that the indemnity period does not necessarily end when a business is rehabilitated to the point of being able to resume normal trading activities. Subject to the maximum limit selected and stated in the definition the indemnity period continues until the results of the business are restored to normal (i.e. the results are those that would have been generated but for the incident), which may be many months after the physical damage to buildings, machinery and stock has been made good. Whilst there is no definition of the term ‘results’, this should be taken to mean financial results and thus encompass not just the turnover of the business, but also its costs. Therefore, if the business continues to incur additional expenditure by way of increase in cost of working once turnover returns to pre-incident levels, then the indemnity period will extend as long as that expenditure is being incurred, subject to application of the maximum indemnity period. It is also conceivable that the costs of a business may be reduced, e.g. if a more efficient production process is introduced following an incident. Again, the results of the business are continuing to be affected and thus the indemnity period is extended. It should further be noted that, should an incident cause an interruption to the business, the indemnity period is not necessarily the same as the maximum period selected and specified in the policy wording. It is the period, measured from the date of the incident up to the point when the results of the business are no longer affected by the incident, subject to this period not exceeding the insured maximum number of months … For example, in the case of an insurance with a maximum indemnity period of 12 months, if an incident should occur and cause an interference with the business for 15 weeks the indemnity period will be 15 weeks.”
“The standard method used in business interruption insurance to quantify the sum payable under the policy takes an earlier period of trading for comparison purposes. In most wordings this is the calendar year preceding the operation of the insured peril. A ‘standard turnover’ or ‘standard revenue’ is derived from the turnover of the business in this period. This figure is then compared with the actual turnover or revenue during the indemnity period. The results of the business in the comparator period are also used to derive a percentage of turnover that represents gross profit. The rate of gross profit is then applied to the reduction in turnover to calculate the recoverable loss. Increase in the cost of working during the indemnity period is also typically covered. Whilst the basic comparison between the turnover of the business in the prior period and in the indemnity period will produce a rough quantification of the lost revenue, there may be specific reasons why a higher or lower figure would be expected for the indemnity period apart from the operation of the insured peril. For example, the general trend in the business may be such as to make it likely that there would have been increased or decreased turnover during the indemnity period in any case compared with the previous year. Equally, there may be specific reasons why the turnover during the prior year was depressed, such as a strike that affected the business, or why it would be expected to have been depressed anyway during the indemnity period, such as a scheduled strike. The purpose of the trends clause is to provide for adjustments to be made to reflect ‘trends’ or ‘circumstances’ such as these. The aim is to achieve a more accurate figure for the insured loss than would be achieved merely by a comparison with the prior period and to seek to arrive at a figure which, consistently with the indemnity principle, is as representative of the true loss as is possible. The adjustment may work in favour of either the policyholder or the insurer, but it is meant to be in the interests of both.”
“Supposing a person took away a chair out of my room and kept it for twelve months, could anybody say you had a right to diminish the damages by shewing that I did not usually sit in that chair, or that there were plenty of other chairs in the room? The proposition so nakedly stated appears to me to be absurd.”
“PROPERTY CATASTROPHE EXCESS OF LOSS REINSURANCE CONTRACT.”
“This Contract shall indemnify the Reinsured in respect of all business written within the Reinsured’s Property Department and classified as Household and Commercial and all business classified by the Reinsured as Contractors’ All Risks and Engineering All Risks including Motor Own Damage.”
“losses occurring in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), including incidental extensions thereto.”
“Limit(s) Deductible(s) Layer 1 GBP 20,000.000 in excess of GBP 10,000,000 Layer 2 GBP 40,000,000 in excess of GBP 30,000,000 Layer 3 GBP 80,000,000 in excess of GBP 70,000,000 Ultimate Net Loss each and every Loss Occurrence, inclusive of costs”
“In the event of loss or losses occurring under this Contract, it is hereby mutually agreed to reinstate this Contract to its full amount from the time of such loss or losses until the expiry of this Contract. However, limited to the number of reinstatements and at an additional premium as follows: Layer 1 Two full reinstatements, one at 100% additional premium as to time but pro rata as to amount reinstated and one at nil additional premium. Layer 2 Two full reinstatements at 100% additional premium as to time but pro rata as to amount reinstated. Layer 3 One full reinstatement at 100% additional premium as to time but pro rate as to amount reinstated. Such additional premium shall be paid by the Reinsured when any loss or losses arising hereunder are settled … Losses hereunder are applied chronologically by date of loss. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Reinsured may make collections in respect of losses which fall due for recovery on a settled basis, which may ultimately not be recoverable hereon when all losses are considered in chronological order.”
“The term ‘Premium Income’ shall be understood to mean gross premiums of the Reinsureds in respect of business coming within the Class (excluding Motor) written during the Period less cancellations and return premiums, all commissions, profit commissions, deductions and allowances under the original business, cessations to Flood Re and premiums given off by way of reinsurance which inures to the benefit of the Reinsurers hereon.”
“The Reinsured shall be the sole judge of what is classified as ‘Household’ Business, ‘Commercial’ business and ‘Contractors’ All Risks and ‘Engineering’ All Risks business.”
“Reinsuring Condition In consideration of the payment of the premium and subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract, the Reinsurers agree to indemnify the Reinsured up to the Limit(s) in excess of the Deductible(s) on account of each and every Loss Occurrence, which the Reinsured may sustain under the business specified in Class of Business, as stated in the Risk Details during the Period [of the Covéa Reinsurance] …”
“1) The term ‘Loss Occurrence’ shall mean all individual losses arising out of and directly occasioned by one catastrophe. 2) The duration and extent of any ‘Loss Occurrence’ so defined shall be limited to: (i) 120 consecutive hours as regards hurricane, typhoon, windstorm, rainstorm, hailstorm or tornado (ii) 72 consecutive hours as regards earthquake, seaquake, tidal wave or volcanic eruption (iii) 72 consecutive hours and within the limits of one country as regards riot, civil commotion or malicious damage (iv) 120 consecutive hours as regards any ‘Loss Occurrence’ which includes individual loss or losses from a combination of any of the insured peril mentioned in paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above. However, it is understood that within the period of consecutive hours the Reinsured shall treat as constituting a Loss Occurrence all individual losses occurring during a period of • 120 consecutive hours as regards the insured perils referred to in paragraph (i) above; and • 72 consecutive hours as regards the insured perils referred to in (ii) and (iii) above. (v) 504 consecutive hours as regards flood howsoever caused (vi) 504 consecutive hours as regards flood in combination with any of the insured peril mentioned in paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above. However, it is understood that within the period of consecutive hours the Reinsured shall treat as constituting a Loss Occurrence all individual losses occurring during a period of • 120 consecutive hours as regards the insured perils referred to in paragraph (i) above; and • 72 consecutive hours as regards the insured perils referred to in (ii) and (iii) above; and • 504 consecutive hours as regards the insured peril referred to in paragraph (v) above. vii) 168 consecutive hours for any Loss Occurrence of whatsoever nature which does not include individual loss or losses from any of the insured perils mentioned in any of the paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) or (v) above and no individual loss from whatever insured period, which occurs outside these periods or areas, shall be included in that ‘Loss Occurrence’. 3) Notwithstanding 1) and 2) above: (a) Loss or losses resulting from fire, directly resulting from any of the insured perils mentioned in 2)(i), 2)(ii), 2)(iii) or 2(v) above constituting one Loss Occurrence, shall be included in full for the purposes of the calculation of the Loss Occurrence notwithstanding the applicable period of consecutive hours being thereby exceeded, subject however to a maximum period of 168 consecutive hours not being exceeded and provided such fire or fires shall have commenced during the applicable period of consecutive hours elected by the Reinsured. (b) The Reinsured shall have the option to deem any one ‘Loss Occurrence’ to be the aggregate of all such individual losses within the Territorial Scope (regardless of locality) involving an insured peril referred to in 2)(i), 2)(iii) or 2)(v) above, or 504 hours as regards collapse caused by weight of snow or water damage from burst pipes or melted snow as insured perils, or a continuation of such insured perils, which occur within the specified period of consecutive hours corresponding to such insured perils. However, within the period of consecutive hours selected by the Reinsured, involving a combination of the insured perils referred to above, the Reinsured shall only be permitted to aggregate loss or losses up to; • 120 consecutive hours as regards 2)(i) above; • 72 consecutive hours as regards 2)(iii) above; • 504 consecutive hours as regards 2)(v) above; and • 504 consecutive hours as regards collapse caused by weight of snow or water damage from burst pipes or melted snow. (c) The Reinsured shall have the option to deem any one ‘Loss Occurrence’ to be the aggregate of all such individual losses within the Territorial Scope (regardless of locality) involving an insured peril referred to in 2)(ii)) above, or 2(ii) or 2)(v) above (always provided that such insured perils are a direct or indirect consequence of 2(ii), which occur during the specified period of consecutive hours corresponding to such insured perils. However, within the period of consecutive hours selected by the Reinsured, involving a combination of the insured perils referred to above, the Reinsured shall only be permitted to aggregate loss or losses up to; • 72 consecutive hours as regards 2)(ii) above; • 72 consecutive hours as regards 2)(iii) above; and • 504 consecutive hours as regards 2)(v) above. 4) In all cases under this Condition 2 – Definition of Loss Occurrence … 3. the Reinsured may choose the date and time when any such period of consecutive hours commences and the date and time when it ends, subject always to the maximum period of consecutive hours set out hereinbefore; 4. in the event that the Loss Occurrence exhausts the full extent of the reinsurance cover purchased by the Reinsured for each Loss Occurrence in place at the time of the Loss Occurrence, or the maximum period of consecutive hours permissible is exceeded, the Reinsured may divide the Loss Occurrence into two or more Loss Occurrences, provided that: (i) there is no overlap in time between two such Loss Occurrences which involve the same insured peril or combination of insured perils; and (ii) no Loss Occurrence commences earlier than the date and time of the happening of the first recorded individual loss to the Reinsured which forms part of that Loss Occurrence…”
“If this Contract should expire or be terminated while a Loss Occurrence is in progress, it is understood and agreed that, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Contract, the Reinsurers hereon are responsible as if the entire loss or damage had occurred prior to the expiration or termination of the Contract provided that no part of that Loss Occurrence is claimed against any renewal or replacement of this Contract.”
“All loss settlements made by the Reinsured, provided same are within the terms and conditions of the original policies in respect of business covered hereunder and within the terms and conditions of this Contract, shall be unconditionally binding upon the Reinsurers and amounts falling to the share of the Reinsurers shall be payable by the Reinsurers within 15 days upon receipt of such evidence of the amounts being paid being provided by the Reinsured ….”
“Destruction by Civil Authority This Contract is extended to include direct loss and damage arising from the action or actions taken when complying with an order of a duly constituted Civil Authority at the time of and only during a conflagration, flood or similar insured peril, and only when necessary for the purposes of restricting the loss or damage of other property from the respective insured peril, subject however, to the terms and conditions of this Contract.”
“Transmission and Distribution Line Exclusion Clause (300m) All above ground transmission and distribution lines, including wire, cables, poles, pylons, standards, towers or other supporting structures and any equipment of any type which may be attendant to such installations of any description for the purpose of transmission or distribution of electrical power, telephone or telegraph signals, and all communication signals whether audio or visual. This exclusion applies to all equipment other than that which is on or within 300 metres (or 1000 feet) of an insured structure. This exclusion applies to both physical loss or damage to the equipment and all business interruption, consequential loss and/or other contingent losses related to transmission and distribution lines, other than contingent property damage/business interruption losses (including expenses), arising from loss and/or damage to lines of third parties.” (“the Covéa Transmission Exclusion”). ii) Exclusion (g), which “excludes loss, damage, destruction, distortion, erasure, unavailability, corruption or alteration of ELECTRONIC DATA”, but with a write-back “in the event that physical loss or damage: (i) to property insured under any of the Reinsured’s original policies and/or contracts in force under this Contract from an insured peril results from any of [the excluded] matters …. Or (ii) causes loss of or damage to Electronic Data; this Contract will cover such loss or damage and consequential loss therefrom.”
“In respect of business written by Markel (UK) and by EC Insurance Company Limited (ECICL/ ECIC) only Losses occurring in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and incidental exposures overseas. In respect of business written by Markel (UK) under the Equine and Livestock Binders only Losses occurring in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the Netherlands, and incidental exposures overseas. In respect of business written by Markel International Deutschland only Losses occurring in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg and incidental exposures overseas. LIMITS (FOR 100%): To pay that part of each Ultimate Nett Loss to the Reinsured in excess of GBP10,000,000 any one loss and/or series of losses arising out of one Event. Up to a further GBP10,000,000 any one loss and/or series of losses arising out of one Event.”
“In the event of a loss or losses being paid under this Reinsurance, it is agreed to reinstate this Reinsurance up to 1 full reinstatement of the limit of indemnity (as expressed in the "Limits") from the time of commencement of the occurrence of such loss or losses until the expiry of this Reinsurance on payment of an additional premium by the Reinsured, calculated at pro-rata of 100% of the finally adjusted premium, when any loss or losses (or part thereof) requiring such reinstatement hereunder are settled. Nevertheless, Reinsurers shall never be liable for more than the limit of indemnity, as expressed in the "Limits", nor for more than GBP20,000,000 in all hereunder. For the purpose of the foregoing; (a) The term "pro-rata" shall mean pro-rata only as to the fraction of the limit of indemnity hereby reinstated. (b) The finally adjusted premium hereon shall be computed in accordance with the "Premium". (c) If any loss settlement requiring payment of reinstatement premium is made prior to the relevant finally adjusted premium being computed, then the reinstatement premium shall be provisionally calculated on the latest adjusted premium or the Deposit Premium, if no adjustment has been made and subsequently adjusted if, and as necessary.”
“The premium payable hereunder shall be calculated at the rate of 1.7535% applied to Reinsured's finally adjusted Nett Premium Income accounted for during the period from1 January 2020 to31 December 2020 , both days inclusive, on their last three open years of Account, in respect of the business hereby reinsured. Adjustment to be made as soon as possible after28 February 2021 . Furthermore, a Minimum and Deposit Premium of GBP192,000 shall be payable in two equal instalments, in account, on1 March 2020 and1 September 2020 . For the purposes of the foregoing adjustment(s), original premiums in currencies other than Pounds Sterling shall be converted into Pounds Sterling at the rates of exchange as used in the books of the Reinsured. The term "Nett Premium Income" shall mean gross premiums less all commissions, brokerage, discounts, profit commissions, taxes if any, cancellations, returns of premiums and less premiums given off by way of reinsurance, recoveries under which inure to the benefit of Reinsurers hereon.”
“The words ‘Event’ shall mean all individual losses arising out of, and directly occasioned by one catastrophe. However, the duration and extent of any "Event" so defined shall be limited to: (a) 168 consecutive hours as regards a hurricane, typhoon, windstorm, rainstorm, hailstorm and/or tornado, (b) 72 consecutive hours as regards earthquake, seaquake, tidal wave and/or volcanic eruption, (c) 72 consecutive hours and within the limits of one City, Town or Village as regards riots, civil commotion and malicious damage, (d) 504 consecutive hours as regards flood, (e) 72 consecutive hours as regards any "Event" which includes individual losses or losses any of the perils mentioned in (a), (b) and (c) above, (f) 168 consecutive hours for any "Event" of whatsoever nature that does not include individual loss or losses from any perils mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, and no individual loss from whatever Insured peril, which occurs outside these periods or areas, shall be included in that ‘Event’. The Reinsured may choose the date and time when any such period of consecutive hours commences and, if any catastrophe is of greater duration than the above periods, the Reinsured may divide that catastrophe into two or more ‘Events’, provided that no two periods overlap and provided no such period commences earlier than the date and time of the first recorded individual loss to the Reinsured in respect of the catastrophe in question ...”
“It is agreed that for all purposes hereunder losses shall be considered in chronological loss date order of occurrence but this shall not preclude the Reinsured from making provisional collections hereunder in respect of claims which may ultimately not be recoverable hereon”
“The term ‘Ultimate Nett Loss’ shall mean the sum actually paid or agreed to be paid by the Reinsured in settlement of losses or liability after making deductions for all recoveries, all salvages, and all claims payable under other reinsurances, whether collected or not, and shall include all costs and expenses forming part of loss settlements as more fully detailed in the Loss Settlements Clause. All salvages, recoveries or payments recovered or received subsequent to a loss settlement under this Reinsurance shall be applied as if recovered or received prior to the aforesaid settlement and all necessary adjustments shall be made by the parties hereto. Provided always that nothing in this Clause shall be construed to mean that losses under this Reinsurance are not recoverable until the Reinsured’s Ultimate Nett Loss has been ascertained. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, it is agreed that underlying recoveries on other excess of loss reinsurances (as far as applicable) are for the sole benefit of the Reinsured and shall not be taken into account in computing the Ultimate Nett Loss nor in any way prejudice the Reinsured’s right of recovery hereunder.”
“If this Reinsurance should expire whilst any loss covered hereunder is in progress it is agreed that, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Reinsurance, the Reinsurers hereon shall be liable for their share of the entire loss or damage as if the entire loss or damage had occurred prior to the expiration of this Reinsurance, provided that no part of that loss is claimed against any renewal of this Reinsurance.”
“All loss payments and settlements (including compromise settlements) made by the Reinsured, save those outside the terms of this Reinsurance, shall be binding upon the Reinsurers to the extent of their share hereunder. All expenses (excluding salaries of all employees and office expenses of the Reinsured) incurred by the Reinsured (a) in the investigation, defence and settlement of claims or suits or in connection with any salvage or subrogation when attributable to a loss covered hereunder (“Loss Adjustment Expenses”), and (b) in declaratory judgment or similar actions to determine coverage specifically under the business reinsured for a loss actually or allegedly covered hereunder or for rescission or voidance of the business reinsured hereunder (“Declaratory Judgment Expenses”), shall form part of such loss settlements.”