Overseas Union Insurance v Home and Overseas Insurance: Reinsurance, Retrocession, and Commutation Agreement Dispute

Overseas Union Insurance Ltd (OUI), a Singapore-incorporated insurance company, sued Home And Overseas Insurance Company Limited (Home), a UK-incorporated insurance company, in the High Court of Singapore, seeking payment under a retrocession contract. The dispute arose from a commutation agreement OUI entered into with C.J. Warrilow (CJW) Syndicate No 553, its reinsured, without Home's participation. OUI sought to bind Home to this agreement, but Home disclaimed liability. The High Court dismissed OUI's appeal, finding that the commutation agreement was not binding on Home.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by Overseas Union Insurance Ltd to Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

OUI's claim against Home for payment under a retrocession contract was dismissed due to a commutation agreement with reinsured CJW not binding on Home.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Overseas Union Insurance LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd (No 2)Respondent, DefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Overseas Union Insurance Ltd (OUI) entered into reinsurance contracts with C.J. Warrilow (CJW) Syndicate No 553 between 1980 and 1984.
  2. One contract, NM 8100270 dated 18 August 1981, was for Excess of Loss (XOL) Reinsurance regarding a Casualty Account.
  3. OUI's liability under the XOL contract was retroceded to Home And Overseas Insurance Company Limited (Home).
  4. In 1995, OUI negotiated a commutation agreement with CJW for US$625,650, releasing OUI from all claims by CJW.
  5. OUI sought US$74,773 from Home based on a mathematical apportionment after the commutation agreement.
  6. Home disclaimed liability, arguing the sum represented loss for which liability had not attached and that it did not participate in commutation negotiations.
  7. OUI's claim was dismissed by the District Court, leading to an appeal to the High Court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd (No 2), DA 600020/2001, [2002] SGHC 109

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Overseas Union Insurance Ltd entered into various insurance and/or reinsurance contracts with C.J. Warrilow (‘CJW’) Syndicate No 553.
Overseas Union Insurance Ltd suffered losses and began to run-off its XOL reinsurance business.
Reinsurance slip was dated.
Contract NM 8100270 dated for Excess of Loss (or ‘XOL’) Reinsurance in respect of So-Called ‘Casualty Account’ (‘the XOL contract’) was entered into.
Policy of reinsurance dated.
Overseas Union Insurance Ltd commenced negotiations with CJW to commute all reinsurance claims under various contracts between them.
A commutation agreement was achieved in respect of ten such contracts.
Overseas Union Insurance Limited (‘OUI’) is the Plaintiff in DC Suit No 51197 of 1999.
Judgement in Leefon Corporation (Pte) Ltd v Stone Tec Material Supplies Pte Ltd, DCA No 600003 of 2001.
Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co [2001] 3 SLR 330.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Failure to Plead Contractual Provision
    • Outcome: The court held that Overseas Union Insurance Ltd was not entitled to rely on Article XVIII of the XOL contract because it was not pleaded.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Binding Effect of Commutation Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the commutation agreement between Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and CJW was not binding on Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Interpretation of 'Compromise Settlements'
    • Outcome: The court determined that 'compromise settlements' in Article XVIII must be in the nature of loss settlements, and a commutation agreement does not fall under this definition.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Indemnification

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Indemnity

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Reinsurance
  • Insurance Coverage

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Geo W McKnightUnknownYes[1947] 80 Lloyd’s Rep 419EnglandCited regarding the court's ability to consider evidence beyond the pleadings of parties.
Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR 92SingaporeCited for approval of the principle that a court can consider evidence beyond the pleadings of parties.
K.E.P. Mohamed Ali v K.E.P. Mohamed IsmailUnknownYes[1981] 2 MLJ 10MalaysiaCited regarding the object of modern pleadings to prevent surprise.
The Ohm MarianaCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 698SingaporeCited regarding the principle that cases must be decided on the issues on the record and the importance of pleadings in defining the issues.
American Airlines Inc v HopeUnknownYes[1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301EnglandCited to describe the procedure of insurance contracts placed in the London market.
Insurance Co of the State of Pennsylvania v Grand Union Insurance CoUnknownYes[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 208EnglandCited to describe the procedure of insurance contracts placed in the London market.
The ZephyrUnknownYes[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58EnglandCited to describe the procedure of insurance contracts placed in the London market.
Youell v Bland Welch & CoHigh CourtYes[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 423EnglandCited to describe the procedure of insurance contracts placed in the London market.
Youell v Bland Welch & CoCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127EnglandCited to describe the procedure of insurance contracts placed in the London market.
Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance CoHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 330SingaporeCited for a useful account as to how such contracts come about.
Pine Top Insurance Co LtdUnknownYes[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 476EnglandCited regarding the interpretation of 'All terms clauses and conditions as original'.
In Re a Company No. 0013734 of 1991UnknownYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 415EnglandCited regarding the settlement of claims.
The Insurance Co of Africa v Scor (U.K.) Reinsurance Co LtdUnknownYes[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 312EnglandCited regarding the interpretation of the ‘follow settlements’ clause.
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v Grand Union Insurance Co and Lowndes Lambert Construction LtdCourt of AppealYes[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 208Hong KongCited regarding the interpretation of the ‘follow settlements’ clause.
John Robert Charman v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Plc & anotherUnknownYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 607EnglandCited regarding the issue of onus of proof.
Hill v The Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co PlcUnknownYes[1996] Lloyd’s Reinsurance LR 341EnglandCited regarding the provisos in the ‘follow settlements’ clause.
Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc v NGR Victory Reinsurance LtdUnknownYes[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600EnglandCited regarding the ‘follow settlements’ clause.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reinsurance
  • Retrocession
  • Commutation Agreement
  • Excess of Loss Reinsurance
  • Loss Settlements
  • Compromise Settlements
  • Follow the Settlements Clause
  • Known Outstanding Losses
  • Incurred But Not Reported Claims
  • Ultimate Net Loss Clause

15.2 Keywords

  • reinsurance
  • retrocession
  • commutation agreement
  • insurance
  • contract law
  • singapore
  • high court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Reinsurance
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure