QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER JULY 2014
ENERGY
&MARINE
FOCUS ON: OPERATING
IN THE SAHEL AND
NORTH AFRICA
LPL Marine Team
expansion
LPL have strengthened our
Marine Team by the addition
of six individuals joining from
Besso Limited.
19
Atlantic Named
Windstorm Forecasts
Oil production in the Sahara and North Africa has experienced
considerable turmoil since the Arab Spring. In many territories oil
production has fallen, international oil companies have made a loss
and traders and off-takers have left empty-handed.
23
This year’s activity is predicted
to spawn below the long term
average number of hurricanes
and intense hurricanes
20
CONTENTS
We are pleased to provide our existing, and
potential clients with our 3rd Quarterly Newsletter
of 2014.
JULY 2014
In this Edition, which is our 39th quarterly edition since the
formation of Lloyd & Partners in January 2005, we have adopted
a redesigned format in line with our revised corporate branding.
You will notice a new look and feel to this publication but will find
the same tried and tested formula in terms of content.
In addition to our regular features, in this edition we have a focus on
Operating in the Sahel and North Africa.
We hope that readers will find this newsletter interesting and
informative and would welcome any feedback you may have, positive
or negative, which you can email to: [email protected]
or pass on to any of your usual LPL contacts.
If you are reading this in hard copy or have been forwarded it
electronically, and would like to be added to our electronic mailing list
or you wish to unsubscribe from our electronic mailing list, please
email [email protected].
05
20
07
23
19
01
General State of the
Market Overview
05
Recent Quotes
06
Market Moves/
People in the News
07
What’s New?
New products and market
developments
07
Briefly
News snippets
10
Update on Losses
12
Security Ratings Update
14
Legal Roundup
19
LPL Marine Team
expansion
20
Atlantic Named
Windstorm Forecasts
21
Oil Insurance Limited
(OIL) Update
23 FOCUS ON:
OPERATING IN
THE SAHEL AND
NORTH AFRICA
Despite the obstacles, the
region has an abundance of
oil wealth, much of it light and
sweet, making it valuable and
easy to access.
26
26
“Focus On” Special
Articles Archive
28
About Lloyd & Partners
01
GENERAL STATE OF THE
MARKET OVERVIEW
General Backdrop
The market is a nexus point where greed and fear meet. The second quarter of 2014
saw the animal spirits definitely vanquish the meek as the corporate (i.e. C-Suite)
top-down order for “profitable growth” burst the chains of market discipline held in
place since 2002.
The over capitalization of the energy
insurance sector became very evident
post March as the pace of reductions
doubled in quantum.
Placements that last year were difficult
to complete due to say poor loss
records, high catastrophe exposure,
offshore drilling exposure or bad
engineering, all got easily completed
this year and often suffered significant
signing issues (where brokers over
place a risk and sign back insurers
offered lines).
The tsunami of risk capital that they
have created is forcing insurers to
re-evaluate their core ethos. Some are
partially abandoning their pens to the
brokers in the hope they can profitably
slipstream the distribution systems of
the intermediaries. Talk of market
trackers to justify this behaviour has
become fashionable as if the volatile
energy sector behaves just like the retail
automobile class. Ironically, many of
these new delegators of selecting risks
had a long history of rigid control as to
what they accepted into their portfolio.
The second half of the year will likely
see more capital preparing to deploy as
new entrants continue to appear and
reinsurance pricing weakens still further
under the onslaught of alternative capital.
The success of some policies now
including full property cyber risk
coverage on major refinery and
petrochemical plants is perhaps the
apex example of how insurers are being
forced to completely give ground on
serious issues that only a few years ago
would have been impossible to cover.
For now clients can enjoy the collateral
dividend of “zero bound” interest rates,
being a bountiful bloom of competent
and secure capital with a greedy
appetite for energy risks. For those with
long memories 2014 is not quite 1999
(where insurers famously completely
lost their bearings) but it certainly has
the potential to begin imitating the
excesses of that pre-Millennium year.
02
Upstream Energy
The second 90 days of the year have
seen the weakest pricing power position
of upstream insurers since 2000.
The Lloyd’s 2005-2013 Net Combined
Ratio for the Energy sector bar chart
below clearly demonstrates why the
market continues softening with a
significant profitability gap below the
break-even line for the past five years.
Low signings, especially on drilling
contractors, sparked fierce clashes
between the markets and the
intermediaries. Steep declines in Gulf
of Mexico windstorm rates were
de rigueur. Insurance Linked Securities
made no impact in the wind sector
and only served to verify the excellent
offers and “low touch” client friendly
service supplied by the conventional
facultative market.
Insurers’ ability to control risks within
placements by suggesting engineering
solutions (i.e. third party reviews,
intrusive risk data gathering etc.) has
definitively continued to wane, and
clients have pleasingly therefore garnered
a less frictional and better product.
Energy Casualty
Offshore construction has also seen
some of the lowest rates since 1999
(especially on the more major projects).
However, the good news is that rises, if
any, are minimal and then only with
increased exposures. Focus on
maintaining physical damage income
will invariably create some opportunities
to obtain cheaper terms by leveraging
cross-class participation.
There has also been some evidence of
a trend for Insureds that do not need
big limits to achieve premium
reductions of as much as 40% with a
complete remarket and leader changes.
Upstream is now the buying sweet spot
if you are a procurer of capacity today.
Lloyd’s Energy Net Combined Ratios
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The significant increase in property
capacity has not been replicated in the
casualty arena. Whilst limited capacity
increases have occurred there is
insufficient additional capacity to alter
the firm rating environment.
03
Midstream/Downstream
Energy
As the 1st Half 2014 closes and with
most of the heavy lifting done for the
year market losses to date have been
light and conditions have predictably
continued to soften. The rate and
quantum of reductions accelerated in
the 2nd Quarter and as we move into
the 3rd Quarter period we expect that
position to stabilise at the prevailing
levels. A number of insurers have been
obliged to reappraise their 2014
budgetary expectations downwards
after taking robust positions previously.
Importantly from an insurer standpoint,
although retention levels have come
under pressure from time to time,
buyers have been content to take the
rate credits and other coverage
enhancements on offer. The current
stability of retention levels and absence
of meaningful losses have provided
some relief to insurers but should this
change it will likely be a game changer
for some. In the meantime the
continued abundance of capacity
means smaller providers continue to
work very hard to achieve new business
share and maintain signings on renewals.
We expect buyers however to continue
to enjoy an excellent environment
throughout 2014.
Regionalisation remains a factor with
London now becoming one of the
keenest competitors as the battle for
market share continues. Interestingly,
U.S. domestic insurers who typically
adjust their rating to edge out London
have shown some reticence to do so
over this last period and as such we
have seen increased orders to London.
Conversely the Middle Eastern/North
African and Southeast Asian markets
remain aggressive and proprietorial
within territory.
The CL380 (Cyber Attack) exclusion
remains topical and the reality is that
interested clients are holding back on
commitment as solutions are worked
through the market. Some bespoke
solutions have been offered but this in a
number of instances has been
undermined by unrealistic pricing
expectations from insurers and the
driving through of All Risk programs
with the CL380 omitted. Whilst treaty
solutions are found within the All Risk
portfolio and there remains a lack of
tangible catastrophic physical damage
loss of assets linked to cyber-attack, it
is unlikely that bespoke solutions will
find meaningful traction.
04
Power
The Power market continues to soften
as the year goes on, albeit not as
dramatically as the general
Property market.
Some markets look set to try to see
how they manage books/budgets by
cutting back and declining some
accounts and standing their ground.
However, the fact that a few are doing
this on some accounts is not leading to
brokers scrambling for capacity. At the
moment there is enough capacity to be
able to place most accounts
comfortably, even if some markets
prefer to walk away. The end result still
tends to be in many cases, that those
markets that do participate are unhappy
with reduced signings post placement.
This surplus capacity is allowing for this
continued downwards rating trend to
progress with some markets claiming
they are suffering “death by a
thousand cuts”.
More than ever we are seeing
underwriters request their long standing
clients to “bear with them” through this
market, explaining that they too have to
try to make money, so discounts have
to be controlled/reasonable.
It is still possible for clients to build
longer term relationships with the
Power market and this can help both
the buyer and the underwriter to
smooth out to some extent the
increases and decreases of the
market cycles. However, the fact is that
the new capacity being offered is in
most cases also well-rated, recognised
and well established, so it is difficult for
clients not to consider it.
In order to offset more dramatic
premium reductions, these markets will
often offer improved coverages or
policy enhancements. Many clients
appreciate this option as an alternative
and therefore vows are renewed for
another 12 (or 18) months.
Marine
Rate suppression continues to be
prevalent within the London hull market.
Competition between underwriters
remains strong, and this seems likely to
continue as the market deals with
apparent over-supply of capacity on
most marine classes. Some
underwriters are reacting by becoming
more selective in their commitment to
particular classes, with bluewater hull
being the arena within which appetite is
most obviously declining. Other classes
continue to receive good support,
dependent upon claims performance
and deductibles.
05
RECENT QUOTES
The following are ‘sound bites’ taken from speeches, statements or articles by
prominent market figures about the insurance market and whilst we have tried
not to take their words out of context, the excerpt may not be the entire speech
or article.
Denis Kessler, Chairman and
Chief Executive of Scor
The London insurance/
reinsurance market must
demonstrate its expertise if it
is to fend off the threat posed by
hedge funds and other sources of
alternative capital. Advances in risk
modelling have enabled alternative
capital to compete with traditional
insurers and reinsurers by transforming
capital investors into underwriters who
can assess risks and probabilities
without needing to be part of an
insurance or reinsurance company to
do so. This has had a disruptive effect
on the traditional reinsurance market – it
brings new capacity, unsettling
traditional markets and affecting prices
in certain geographies and for certain
lines of business. The extent to which
the traditional reinsurance will face
competition from alternative capital will
depend on the progress made by
models. In response, insurers and
reinsurers will need to outsmart those
models and prove the added value of
the industry’s human capital.
Technology will help new entrants with
new tools to penetrate our industry.
Ultimately, technology is going to lower
barriers to entry. Technology, for
instance, is reducing the ‘information
asymmetry’ between insurers and
insureds, reducing costs as well as
contracting timescales and distance.
The production side of insurance and
“
reinsurance services is evolving rapidly,
modifying our organisations, changing
competitive forces, creating new
business opportunities and so on. In a
nutshell, the micro-foundations of the
insurance and reinsurance industry are
going through an unprecedented series
of technology-driven changes. Despite
these advancements there is future for
a ‘physical’ London insurance market.
Technology has made clusters such as
Silicon Valley, Route 128 and the Silicon
Roundabout here in the city [London]
more relevant than before, not less.
A knowledge-based industry such as
the insurance industry needs an
ecosystem of talent where people can
share ideas and emulate each other.
The human capital dimension of our
industry will be reinforced by its digital
transformation. It’s also an industry
where relationships matter a great deal.
It’s an industry based on a deep and
extensive culture of risks. It’s an industry
that rests on best practices drawn up
over centuries.”
Warren Buffett, Chairman and
Chief Executive of Berkshire
Hathaway
In the United States we have
almost eliminated our
catastrophe insurance business.
The rates came down dramatically, and
we do not regard the exposure as
having come down dramatically.”
“
Peter Hancock, AIG Property and
Casualty Chief Executive Officer
Pure underwriting capacity is
increasingly [becoming] a
commodity. Certain risks should
be redistributed to the capital markets.
It’s an important supplement to
traditional reinsurance.”
“
Mathew Shaw, Ace Global
Markets President and Active
Underwriter of Ace’s Lloyd’s
Syndicate 2488
There is no doubt about the
unprecedented level of capital
that is currently entering the
market. There is not enough business
to feed that capital. This will inevitably
lead to a certain amount of pressure
on pricing. We will have to be absolutely
focused and disciplined as to how we
underwrite through the cycle.”
“
06
MARKET MOVES/PEOPLE IN
THE NEWS
Louise Bellamy is leaving Amlin to join
ANV syndicate’s Energy Casualty Team.
Michelle Shaw has left QBE to join
Ascot’s Casualty team.
David Fitzpatrick, Head of
International Casualty at QBE has
resigned to join Ascot.
Mark Johnson has resigned from
Ascot’s Onshore Energy team to join
the Hardy Syndicate.
Elizabeth Mitchell, previously of
Argenta and GCube has joined Munich
Re’s London Energy team.
previously with U.S. insurer Tower
Group and is joined by former Tower
Group colleague Christian Platusich.
Mark Fielding is leaving Zurich
London’s Energy team to join IGI
London’s Energy team.
Michael Dawson who is the active
underwriter of Chaucer’s nuclear
syndicate 1176 has been appointed as
Head of the Energy Practice of Chaucer
Syndicate 1084 replacing Chris White
who left to join the Barbican syndicate.
Raoul Carlos has left Swiss Re’s
Downstream Energy to join Arch.
Robin Waller has joined Advent
syndicate from Liberty International
Singapore, to lead their Energy business.
Tom Clifton, currently a power
underwriter at Inter Hannover has
resigned to join Liberty.
Tom Davis has resigned from Markel to
join Aspen to underwrite their Energy
Casualty book.
Ian Picton (currently at Marsh) has
been hired by XL to write an Energy
book in Singapore.
Dermot O’Donohoe is stepping down
as chief executive of Torus and will be
replaced by Enstar’s joint chief
operating officer, Nick Packer.
Demian Smith has been appointed
Chief Executive of Torus’s international
business segment, which includes
Torus’s Lloyd’s, London market and
European operations. David Message
has been appointed Chief
Underwriting Officer of Torus’s
international business unit.
Anne Plumb is joining Novae as head
of international property. She was
previously class underwriter for
international and corporate property at
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group.
Neil Baldwin has resigned from the
Hardy syndicate to pursue opportunities
outside of the Insurance industry.
Tom Guarnera has joined Talbot
Underwriting’s New York office, as
Vice President of Marine and
Energy Underwriting. Guarnera was
John Henderson has now officially
joined Liberty (starting 1 July) to
underwrite their Energy Casualty book.
Martin Reith (ex Ascot founding CEO)
is to join ILS fund manager Securis as
an Advisory Director.
Bernt Hellman (former Skuld Syndicate
underwriter), has been hired by DUAL
(Hyperion’s managing general agency
arm) to build up its Global Marine and
Energy business.
07
Briefly
Lloyd’s has announced a profit of £3.2 bn for 2013 (£2.8 bn in 2012). Gross written
premium income increased to a new high of £26.1 bn, with a combined ratio of
86.8% and a pre-tax return on capital of 16.2%. In a press release Lloyd’s stated
that 2013 was a benign year for insured catastrophes, with major claims to Lloyd’s
totalling £873 mm. Despite this, total net incurred claims were £9.6 bn in 2013,
down from £10.1 bn the previous year. Investment income was £839 mm
(2012: £1,311 mm) and prior year reserve surplus releases were £1,575 mm
(2012: £1,351 mm). Energy & Marine classes fared as follows:
Energy: combined ratio 83% (from 76% in 2013), Gross Written Premiums
£1.67bn (down by 3.4% on 2012), reserve releases equivalent to 11.3% of net
earned premiums (down from 19.1% in 2013).
what’s
New?
New Products
aNd Market
develoPMeNts
Trident Marine Managers in
Houston are now underwriting a
book of Upstream Energy business
on-behalf of Partner Re.
Worldwide Facilities in Houston
have announced the formation of a
strategic partnership with Canopius
and Beazley to provide a new
underwriting platform for landbased oil and gas lease operators.
They will offer OEE policies with
limits up to USD25mm and have
employed John Jones, formerly of
Navigators and Scott Fuqua
formerly of Zurich Houston.
Marine: combined ratio 95.4% (from 99.9% in 2013), Gross Written Premiums
£2.12bn (up by 5% on 2012), reserve releases equivalent to 7.4% of net
earned premiums.
Marine claims statistics provided by the International Union of Marine Insurance
(IUMI)’s show that total hull losses hit a record low in 2013. The report, published
early April, stated that the frequency of total losses had continually decreased over
the last 15 years. In 2013, the annual incidence of total losses dropped to a record
low of 0.13% in terms of numbers, and 0.05% in terms of tonnage. Weather
remained the primary cause of total losses, accounting for almost 50% of claims
between 2009 and 2013, while grounding represented 25%. The full report can be
downloaded from www.IUMI.com.
08
Fitch Ratings has published a “Dashboard Report on
Property/Casualty (Re)Insurers’ Asbestos Liability” which
highlights industry asbestos reserves. Fitch estimates industry
asbestos reserves to be deficient by USD 2 bn – USD 9 bn at
year-end 2013, based on estimated ultimate industry losses
of USD 85 bn, total paid losses of USD53 bn and current
reserves totalling USD 23 bn. Fitch anticipates that asbestosrelated losses will continue to impact insurers’ earnings, but will
not generate severe capital shocks that provoke negative
rating actions.
Cyber Attack research carried out by BAE Systems on behalf
of the Aegis Syndicate at Lloyd’s which focused on power
stations in the U.K., Europe, the U.S. and Canada found that
an overwhelming majority of respondents, as well as
specialists and vendors who work with energy companies
and utilities, believe it is not a matter of “if” – but “when” –
there will be a cyber-attack of major significance and impact
on critical operational infrastructure such as the electric grid.
The U.S. Terrorism Insurance Act (TRIA) bill passed by the
U.S. House of Representatives to extend the current
legislation for seven years, has now seen an alternative bill
introduced in the same House, which originally looked for a
three year extension, but now for a five year extension and
has a significant increase in the threshold for damage caused
by Terrorism before the Act is triggered (to USD 500 mm from
USD 100 mm) and increases the co-insurance amount the
insurance market retains from 15% to 20%. However full
congress agreement to an extension of TRIA became another
step closer following the U.S. Senate Banking Committee
unanimously voting to approve the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2014. This will now go to a
full Senate vote.
Lloyd’s Reports
Lloyd’s have recently issued the following reports:
“Autonomous Vehicles, Handing Over Control:
Opportunities and Risks for Insurance”
This report looks at two major categories of autonomous and
unmanned vehicles: autonomous cars and unmanned aerial
systems (UAS). It examines the role of insurance in the
development and adoption of this new technology and
highlights the opportunities and risks autonomous cars and
unmanned aerial systems offer to insurance. The report
finds that:
•
Existing autonomous and unmanned technology is
already sophisticated and will continue to develop
incrementally.
•
Widespread adoption of the technology will rely on welldefined legal and regulatory frameworks and broad public
trust on issues of safety and security.
•
The question of where liability rests in the event of an
accident caused by an autonomous vehicle will be
important to insurers.
•
Insurers will have a significant role in assisting the
development of sound risk management practices for
autonomous and unmanned vehicles.
The full report can be downloaded from
www.lloyds.com/the-market/tools-and-resources/
research/exposure-management/emerging-risks/
emerging-risk-reports
09
“Catastrophe Modelling & Climate Change”
This report explains how the insurance industry increasingly
relies on computerised “probabilistic” catastrophe models
from different providers to manage their catastrophe
risk exposures.
This report reviews the latest findings in climate change
science and its effect on extreme weather events. It then
outlines what catastrophe modelling is and how it came to
be developed. Finally it examines whether and how
catastrophes models account for climate change through a
series of case studies provided by a range of model
providers, including AIR, RMS and EQECAT.
The report highlights:
•
Scientific research points conclusively to the existence of
climate change driven by human activity.
•
Changes in the climate and weather patterns have the
potential to affect extreme weather events.
•
Climate change trends may be implicitly built into
catastrophe models, given the heavy use of historical data
in constructing them; however these trends are not
necessarily explicitly incorporated into the modelling output.
•
The approximately 20 centimetres of sea-level rise at the
southern tip of Manhattan Island increased Superstorm
Sandy’s surge losses by 30% in New York alone.
The full report can be downloaded from
http://www.lloyds.com/the-market/tools-and-resources/
research/exposure-management/emerging-risks/
emerging-risk-reports/climate/catastrophe-modelling-andclimate-change
10
UPDATE ON LOSSES
2014 Energy losses of USD 10mm or more that we are aware of at the time of
writing are as follows. We also show the total of all claims under USD 10 mm
(with a minimum claim USD 1 mm) to give an overall total for the year so far.
2014 Major Upstream Energy Losses (in excess of USD 10 mm Ground-Up)
January
Mooring Line damage
Gulf of Mexico Spar
Blowout
Benin Offshore Oil Well
Blowout
Gulf of Mexico Jack-up drilling over a producing platform
Fire
Semi-Sub Offshore Nigeria
Fire
Jack-up Offshore Mexico
April
Mechanical Failure
Peruvian Onshore production facility
USD 15,500,000
To Date
Total under USD 10,000,000
(Minimum of USD 1 mm)
USD 44,000,000
March
Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 mm)
USD 14,000,000 (est)
USD 20,000,000
*
USD 20,000,000 (est)
USD 50,000,00 (est)
USD 163,500,000
Source: Willis Energy Loss Database/LPL market knowledge (as of 9 June 2014)
Figures shown as “(est)” are estimates from various press or market sources.
Figures do not take into account the effect of any self-insured retention, deductible or policy limit and therefore losses are not necessarily those which insurance markets
have actually suffered but give a rough guide to the overall magnitude of industry loss.
* Reports would suggest in excess of USD 10 mm.
11
2014 Major Downstream Energy Losses (in excess of USD 10 mm Ground-Up)
January
February
March
To Date
Fire & Explosion
Libyan Tank Farm/Terminal
USD 16,000,000
Fire
Saudi Petrochem Plant
USD 65,000,000
Fire
Russian Refinery
USD 13,206,140
Fire & Explosion
Russian Petrochem Plant
USD 83,000,000
Collapse
Israeli Chemical Plant
USD 14,000,000
Fire & Explosion
Swedish Refinery
USD 68,905,000
Total under USD 10,000,000
(Minimum of USD 1 mm)
USD 30,700,000
Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 mm)
USD 290,811,410
Source: Willis Energy Loss Database/LPL market knowledge (as of 9 June2014)
Figures shown as “(est)” are estimates from various press or market sources.
Figures do not take into account the effect of any self-insured retention, deductible or policy limit and therefore losses are not necessarily those which insurance markets
have actually suffered but give a rough guide to the overall magnitude of industry loss.
* Reports would suggest in excess of USD 10mm
2014 Major Power Losses (in excess of USD 10 mm Ground-Up)
January
Damage
U.K. Power Station
USD 12,000,000
February
Mechanical Failure
U.K. Bio-Mass Power Plant
USD 12,000,000
March
Fire
Singapore Solar project
USD 10,000,000
April
Mechanical
Indonesian Geothermal Power Plant
USD 10,000,000
To Date
Total under USD 10,000,000
(Minimum of USD 1 mm)
USD 86,874,000
Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 mm)
USD 130,874,000
Source: Willis Energy Loss Database/LPL market knowledge (as of 9 June 2014)
Figures shown as “(est)” are estimates from various press or market sources.
Figures do not take into account the effect of any self-insured retention, deductible or policy limit and therefore losses are not necessarily those which insurance markets
have actually suffered but give a rough guide to the overall magnitude of industry loss.
* Reports would suggest in excess of USD 10 mm.
12
security ratiNg chaNges
The following rating changes affecting Insurers writing Energy & Marine
business have occurred in the past three months or so.
Insurers Name
Previous Rating
Ace
AM Best A+
Ace
S&P AA-
Infrassure
AM Best A-
Mapfre
S&P A-
Lloyd’s
Fitch A+
Upgrade/Downgrade
▲
▲
▼
▲
▲
New Rating
Effective Date
AM Best A++
2 May 2014
S&P AA
19 May 2014
AM Best BBB+
9 May 2014
S&P A
2 June 2014
Fitch AA-
10 June 2014
Note: The above are rating moves we thought warrant mention but are not necessarily all rating changes that have occurred
in the past three months affecting Insurers that write Energy and Marine business and do not include changes in individual
Lloyd’s syndicate’s rating (as Lloyd’s as a whole continues to be rated as an overall entity).
13
14
legal rouNduP
Commercial Court decides
actions of Pirates not an
“in-transit loss”
The case of Trafigura Beheer BV v
Navigazione Montanari Spa involved a
claim by Charterers against Owners for
“in-transit loss” of part of a cargo of
premium motor oil. Upon arrival at port
in Lagos the vessel was instructed by
Charterers to proceed to a position
south-west of the port. Whilst awaiting
further orders, the vessel was attacked
by armed pirates who took control of
the vessel and arranged for a ship-toship transfer of approximately 5,300MT
of the cargo before releasing the vessel.
The charterparty contained an in-transit
loss clause (ITL Clause) which stated
that Owners would be responsible for
the full amount of any in-transit loss
exceeding 0.5%. The charterparty
defined in-transit loss as “the difference
between net vessel volumes after
loading at the loading port and before
unloading at the discharge port”.
Charterers claimed damages of
USD 5 mm from Owners for the
lost cargo. The Court had to decide
whether the pirates’ removal of the
cargo constituted “in-transit loss”
under the ITL Clause.
Charterers argued that because there
was a clear and obvious difference
between the net vessel volume after
loading and the net vessel volume
before unloading at the discharge port,
there had been in-transit loss under the
ITL Clause for which Owners should
be responsible.
Owners responded that in-transit loss
in an ITL Clause of this nature only
covered loss occurring as a direct result
of the transit, and for reasons internal to
the transit, during the course of a
routine, ordinary voyage.
The Court held that the ITL Clause did
not provide an exhaustive definition of
what constituted in-transit loss but
merely defined how the amount of any
in-transit loss was to be determined.
The Court acknowledged that this
created uncertainty. However, as the ITL
Clause did not specify the types of loss
covered by the phrase “in-transit loss”,
the Court would give the expression its
natural business meaning, which was
loss incidental to the carriage of oil
products (for example short delivery
caused by quantity calculation errors,
remnants of cargo left on board or loss
through evaporation) rather than any
loss that arose because of the actions
of pirates.
The Court acknowledged that it would
be difficult in certain cases to ascertain
whether particular losses fell within the
expression “in-transit loss” but
maintained that loss from the pirates’
activities was plainly not covered by
the expression.
15
The United States Court of
Appeals rules that an insurer
who makes voluntary
payments under LHWCA to an
injured employee on behalf of
the employer is entitled to
recover these payments from
the employee’s settlement of a
Jones Act claim.
A worker was injured as a result of a fall
while working as a crane operator on a
deck barge. The employer’s insurer
voluntarily paid the injured worker in
indemnity and medical benefits under
the Longshore and Harbor Workers
Compensation Act (LHWCA). The
injured worker then filed suit against his
employer alleging seaman status and
seeking damages under the Jones Act.
As a result, the insurer stopped the
LHWCA payments and filed a motion
to intervene in the Jones Act suit.
The worker and employer eventually
agreed upon a settlement and the
Court denied the LHWCA insurer’s
motion to intervene holding that they
had no right to subrogation as to the
settlement proceeds, and therefore,
no interest in the property.
On appeal, the Appeals Court held that
an insurer acquires a subrogation right
on an employee’s Jones Act recovery
for the amount of the LHWCA benefits
paid, and reversed the original decision,
stating that a worker who succeeds in a
Jones Act claim is necessarily a
seaman, and therefore not entitled to
LHWCA benefits and as such it would
be particularly unfair to deny the insurer
the right to recover the benefits it has
paid in such a situation.
16
Court of Appeal decision in the
Atlantic Confidence case (see
our January 2014 newsletter)
A vessel owners’ P&I Club had sought
to constitute a limitation fund in England
by providing a Club Letter of
Undertaking (LOU), rather than paying
the required amount into court, as is
usually done. While expressing some
understanding of the owners’ and the
Club’s position, the High Court judge
held that, as a matter of English law,
a limitation fund could not be
constituted by way of a guarantee.
The only means of constituting a
limitation fund was cash payment into
court of the limitation amount.
By a unanimous decision, the Court of
Appeal held that English law does allow
a limitation fund to be constituted by way
of a guarantee, including a P&I Club LOU.
The Appeal Court commented:
The issue is one of considerable
importance to the shipping
industry, including P&I Clubs
and others who provide insurance
and reinsurance in respect of
maritime claims. Because of concerns
that had arisen in shipping circles about
the consequences of the judgment,
this court was provided with a helpful
letter from the International Group of
“
P&I Clubs. This letter explained the
financial and practical benefits both for
P&I Clubs, and for those who need to
constitute limitation funds, of the use of
guarantees, as opposed to cash
deposits paid into court. The letter also
informed the court that numerous
countries throughout the world,
including states which are parties to the
1976 Convention, and states which are
not, readily accept Club LOUs as an
acceptable method of constituting
limitation funds.”
The Appeal Court further commented
that the error in the original court’s
analysis was to take as a starting point
the proposition that they would have
expected to find clear wording
permitting the provision of a guarantee,
rather than focusing on the meaning
and effect of Article 11.2 of the
limitation Convention. Whereas the
correct starting point of the analysis
was the construction of Article 11.2 –
as incorporated into United Kingdom
law by the 1995 Act – in its proper
context and specifically to ask whether
the Convention itself contains any
wording or provision for a fund to be
constituted by a guarantee, rather than
to ask if there is any express provision
in English law which allows this.
The Court of Appeal stated that the
Convention was not drafted by English
draftsmen, with English law in mind,
instead, it was a convention drafted
with input from different interested state
parties, with the purpose of having
international application, and intended
to be applicable in a uniform way
across legal boundaries. Therefore, it
was important to adopt a broad,
purposive, interpretation of its terms.
The task of the court was to construe
the Convention as it stands without any
English law preconceptions.
Looked at in this way, the Appeal Court
found that the provisions of Article 11.2
were clear. There was an “either/or”
option as between payment into court
or provision of a guarantee to constitute
the limitation fund. The only restrictions
as concerned provisions of a
guarantee were that it had to be
acceptable under the legislation of the
State Party and considered to be
adequate by the Court. A P&I Club
LOU offered by a member of the
International Group would arguably be
both acceptable and adequate, but it
would be for the Court in the case at
hand to consider.
17
The U.S. Supreme Court rules
on “What is a Vessel”
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (in
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida)
that a permanently moored houseboat
was not a vessel because “a
reasonable observer, looking to the
home’s physical characteristics and
activities, would not consider it to be
designed to any practical degree for
carrying people or things on water”.
A maritime lien was sought against the
houseboat for unpaid dockage fees and
the legal issue presented was whether
the houseboat was a “vessel” subject to
federal maritime law.
Prior to this decision, U.S. federal
appeals courts had applied different
tests to determine “what is a vessel”,
ranging from looking at the intent of
the owner of the watercraft to a more
literal “anything that floats” approach.
The Court determined that the statutory
phrase “capable of being used ... as a
means of transportation on water”
meant that in order to be a “vessel”,
the watercraft had to have “practical
possibilities” of transportation on water,
and not merely “theoretical ones”.
This decision could have a far-reaching
impact, particularly for the offshore
industry, as, disputes or casualties that
involve barges, work platforms, offshore
drilling/production units and floating
casinos/restaurants etc. may now hinge
on whether they are “vessels”.
Of particular significance is that
limitation of liability under maritime
conventions is only applicable to vessels.
Also under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA 90) limitation of liability for a vessel
is based on a “dollars per ton” formula
(but no less than USD 23,496,000),
whereas the limitation amount for nonvessels is USD 75 mm. Equally, whether
a claimant seeking recovery of
damages for personal injuries sustained
on board a floating structure qualifies as
a “Jones Act” seaman also requires that
the watercraft be a “vessel”.
Since this case early last year, the U.S.
courts have held that: a tension leg
platform in the Gulf of Mexico did not
qualify as a vessel, nor did a floating
club-house, neither therefore being
subject to the Jones Act; a floating
production facility moored
approximately 65 miles offshore
Louisiana in a production field was not
a vessel and therefore no in rem claim
could be made against it; and a floating
dry-dock was not a vessel and
therefore not under admiralty
jurisdiction; all using the Lozman test of
“a reasonable observer, looking to the
physical characteristics and activities”.
‘En banc’ hearing decision on
whether punitive damages can
be recovered by a seaman in
respect of an unseaworthy
vessel
In our April newsletter we reported on
the U.S. Fifth Circuit’ sitting ‘en banc’
on the issue of whether seamen can
recover punitive damages for their
vessel owner/employer’s wilful and
wanton breach of its general maritime
law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel
(‘en banc’ being the entire fifth circuit
bench rather than a panel selected from
the circuit).
At the original trial the rig owner/
employer moved to dismiss the claims
for punitive damages by arguing that
punitive damages were not an available
remedy for unseaworthiness or Jones
Act negligence. The Magistrate Judge
agreed and dismissed all claims for
punitive damages.
The rig crewmembers contended that
punitive damages remain available as a
remedy for the general maritime law
cause of action for unseaworthiness
because, like maintenance and cure,
unseaworthiness was established as a
cause of action before Congress
passed the Jones Act.
18
The Fifth Circuit Appeal Court selected
panel concluded that punitive damages
did remain available to seamen as a
remedy for the general maritime law
claims of unseaworthiness.
The rig owners successfully petitioned
for an en banc hearing, at which
arguments were made that the Jones
Act was not intended to preclude preexisting remedies such as punitive
damages for unseaworthiness caused
by the wilful and wanton conduct of the
vessel owner. The rig owner’s counsel
argued that previous U.S. Supreme
Court jurisprudence, namely, Miles v.
Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990)
specifically limited the types of remedies
that are recoverable to only pecuniary
damages under the Jones Act and
precluded non-pecuniary damages
such as punitive damages.
Expanded ‘occurrence’
definition did not include
improper workmanship
The terms of an owner-controlled
construction insurance policy defined
‘occurrence’ as “an accident, event, or
happening, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the
same general harmful conditions”.
A New York appellate court held that
this arguably expanded definition was
still not sufficiently broad to encompass
deficiencies and improper workmanship.
The appellate court (in the case of
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Turner
Construction), decided that the
addition of ‘happening’ or ‘event’ to
the definition of ‘occurrence’ does
not change the fact that fortuity is
still an essential consideration
when determining whether there is
coverage under such a policy for
faulty workmanship that does not
involve fortuity. The court also declined
to follow case law in other jurisdictions
that has supported a broader scope of
insurance coverage. Construing the
policy under New Jersey law (per the
contract), the court refused to expand
the definition of occurrence to cover
what by the court’s account was a
failure to perform the work as designed.
19
LPL MARINE TEAM
EXPANSION
LPL have strengthened our Marine Team
by the addition of six individuals joining
from Besso Limited.
The combined team, led by David Smith, is now twelve strong and has the knowledge
and experience to handle all types of Marine business and in particular:
•
Hull & Machinery and Hull interests including War risks and Port risks
•
Loss of Hire/Earnings
•
Protection and Indemnity (Mutual or Fixed premium)
•
General Marine Liabilities
•
Charterers Liability
•
Ship repairers, Stevedores Liabilities
•
Builders and Conversion risks
•
Specialty Salvage and Wreck Removal Operations.
•
Terminals, Ports and other Marine installations
•
Specialist Marine risks (e.g. Mortgagees Interest, Refund Guarantees, Drug Seize).
•
Tows
•
Underwater equipment/remotely operated vehicles
For further details of our Marine capabilities please contact your usual LPL Account
Executive or David Smith ([email protected])
20
atlaNtic wiNdstorM
seasoN uPdate
This year’s Atlantic Named Windstorm season activity is predicted to spawn
below the long term average number of hurricanes and intense hurricanes
(Category 3 and above).
Colorado State University have stated
that it appears quite likely that an El
Niño of at least moderate strength will
develop and in addition, the tropical
Atlantic has anomalously cooled over
the past few months, meaning they
anticipate a below-average probability
for major hurricanes making landfall
along the United States coastline and in
the Caribbean.
Whilst predictions of lower numbers of
storms can be a useful guide the
potential for significant damage to
offshore oil and gas infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico, it is worth noting that
1992 was a year of very low tropical
storm activity, producing only six named
storms, however, one of those storms
was Hurricane Andrew which caused
devastation as a Category 5 hurricane.
El Niño causes stronger wind shear,
which reduces the number and intensity
of tropical storms and hurricanes.
El Niño can also strengthen the trade
winds and increase the atmospheric
stability across the tropical Atlantic,
making it more difficult for cloud systems
developing off of Africa to intensify into
tropical storms. Historical data indicates
fewer storms form in these conditions.
The latest forecasts from both Colorado
State University and Tropical Storm
Risk, plotted against the 64 year
average and actual activity to date are
shown in the following graph.
12
Number of Storms
Tropical Storm Risk (TSR) point to the
July-September trade wind speed
over the Caribbean and tropical
North Atlantic, and the forecast
August-September 2014 sea surface
temperatures in the tropical
North Atlantic. The former influences
cyclonic vorticity (the spinning up of
storms) in the main hurricane track
region, while the latter provides heat
and moisture to power incipient storms
in the main track region. At present,
TSR anticipates both predictors to
have a moderate supressing effect
on activity.
2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season
11
10
11
10
Tropical
Storms
6
6 6
5
4
4
Hurricanes
2
2
Intense
Hurricanes
Tropical Storm Risk
3
33
1
Colorado University
64 Year Norm
21
oil iNsuraNce liMited
(oil) uPdate
Oil Insurance Limited (OIL) has
surveyed their membership so their
Board and management can establish
the demand for a higher limit offering
from OIL. OIL currently offers one of the
largest single blocks of capacity offered
by any insurer worldwide at
USD 300 mm per member (with a per
event limitation over all members of
USD 900 mm), but have recognised
that many members still have the need
to purchase excess limits from the
commercial market, and as such there
may be interest from members in the
possibility of OIL increasing their limit.
Members were asked whether they
were likely to want to purchase higher
limits from OIL if they were offered a
range of different limits up to a
maximum of USD 500 mm (with the per
event limit being equal to three times
the occurrence limit).
About OIL
OIL is a Bermuda based Energy
Industry Mutual who insures over
USD 2 trn global energy assets for
more than fifty members with
property limits up to USD 300 mm
totalling more than USD 11 bn in
total A- rated property capacity.
Members are medium to large
sized public and private energy
companies with at least USD 1 bn
in physical property assets and an
investment grade rating or equivalent.
Products offered include Property
(Physical Damage), Windstorm, Non
Gradual Pollution, Control of Well,
Terrorism, Construction and Cargo.
The industry sectors that OIL
protects include Offshore and
Onshore Exploration & Production,
Refining and Marketing,
Petrochemicals, Mining, Pipelines,
Electric Utilities and other related
energy business sectors.
22
23
focus oN
oPeratiNg iN
the sahal aNd
North africa
Oil production in the Sahara and North Africa
has experienced considerable turmoil since the
Arab Spring. In many territories oil production
has fallen, international oil companies have
made a loss and traders and off-takers have
left empty-handed. Despite the obstacles, the
region has an abundance of oil wealth, much
of it light and sweet, making it valuable and
easy to access.
The principal challenge faced by these
oil-producing countries is the absence
of strong and capable governments to
carry out the political and economic
reforms necessary in a postrevolutionary era and to effectively
create a business climate receptive to
foreign investment. Weak institutions,
rampant corruption and lack of fixed
and coherent legislation can limit the
operational appetite of international oil
companies, including service providers.
Even in circumstances where significant
political upheaval does not lead to the
destruction of infrastructure assets, the
resumption of oil exports can be
complicated by political factors.
The Libyan oil and gas sector is the
victim of a progressive campaign
aimed at halting exports by shutting
down terminals. In October 2013, the
Western Mellitah export terminal and
the Sahara oil field which it serves were
crippled by protest movements
24
organised by non-Arab minority groups
demanding cultural and linguistic rights.
The Es Sider, Ras Lanuf and Zeuitina oil
terminals in the East under militia control
for nearly six months, leading to a fall in
export volumes of over 50%. The impact
is severe with the government drawing
down on USD 13 bn in reserves to
meet the shortfalls in revenue caused
by the stoppages.
In contrast, Algeria’s oil output has
remained relatively stable as the
government staved off demands for
political reform through the granting of
economic and social concessions.
However in October of 2013 Algeria’s
oil production fell to 1.12 million barrels
a day, the lowest level since 2003, as
security concerns following the
In Amenas attack in January, (made
possible because members of
Al-Mulathameen, who perpetrated the
siege, travelled to Algeria via Libya’s
now porous borders), corruption probes
and delays in granting exploration
licenses constrained its operational
capacity and potential.
Perhaps one of the principal reasons
why conflict is so prevalent in the region
is that many of the combating factions
at play have a greater interest in
sustaining the climate of conflict than
putting an end to it. ‘Winning’ is
therefore no longer the ultimate political
objective because these factions seek
to reap the benefits of a situation
defined by lawlessness and impunity.
Often this involves looting civilian areas,
informal ‘taxing’, protection rackets and
concentrating guerrilla operations in
resource-abundant areas that are
easily extractable. Insecurity and the
high cost of doing business also
encourage actors to seek quick
returns from activities that demand
minimal investment, such as taxing
trade and controlling the flow of certain
primary commodities.
Despite regional political disruption,
opportunities remain and now could
ironically be the ideal time for
international oil companies (IOC) to
move in. Many governments in the
region are still young, weak and
politically fragmented and may offer
concession agreements that are more
favourable to IOC’s in order to kick-start
the economy.
Chinese and Russian oil companies
have proven particularly effective in
thriving in these challenging business
environments where they have fewer
constraints than their Western
counterparts in paying officials or
turning a blind eye when it comes to
issues of transparency and accountability.
The Chinese presence in Sudan, Libya
(now accounting for 10% of Libya’s oil
output) and more recently Niger
demonstrates the importance of these
players within the hydrocarbon market.
The China National Petroleum
25
Corporation (CNPC) has signed an
agreement valued at USD 5 bn to
extract oil at the Agadem Block in the
Niger region. The agreement includes
the construction of a 2,000-kilometer
pipeline and a refinery capable of
processing 20,000 barrels per day.
North Africa and the Sahel have
considerable scope for growth across
the petroleum sector, with much of the
oil reserves there having yet to be
uncovered, and the supporting
infrastructure. New licenses for offshore
and onshore exploration and production
zones are being drafted as new
governments in the region attempt to
solidify their hold on power and the
subsequent colossal oil industry that
comes with it.
Risks in the petroleum sector that
cannot be managed can often be
insured and investments are being
given a boost by the willingness of the
credit & Political Risk market to
underwrite some risks. Capacity in this
class of business increased during
every year of the financial crisis and the
Arab Spring, with claims paid during
this further reinforcing confidence in the
effectiveness of the product. With the
market offering greater capacity than
ever before, support for wellstructured investments in these
territories is available.
This article was written by the
Credit & Political Risk Advisory
team of JLT Specialty Limited
for the Petroleum Review
Magazine April 2014
As one of the world’s strongest
and most successful credit and
political risk insurance brokers,
JLT handle insurance capacity
for their clients of approximately
USD 60 bn at any one time.
Through a relationship driven,
consultative approach they use
a systematic methodology to
quantify, prioritise and minimise
your company’s political risk
and trade credit exposures.
26
FOCUS ON
SPECIAL ARTICLES ARCHIVE
The following is a list of ‘Focus on’ and selected Special Articles
since the formation of LPL in 2005. If you would like any back copies
please visit our website www.lloydandpartners.com/publications
or email [email protected]
April 2014
iCargo/Floating Moring Assessments/OIL Update
January 2014 ‘Focus on’ Insurance Linked Securities/OIL Update
October 2013 ‘Focus on’ Renewable Energy Projects in South Africa/Political Risks in East Africa/OIL Update
July 2013`
‘Focus on’ Political Risk Facing Oil & Gas Companies/Will subsea Technology render platforms a thing of the past/OIL Update
April 2013
‘Focus on’ Nordic Marine Insurance Plan of 2013/OIL Update
January 2013 ‘Focus on’ Expropriation Risk for Foreign Investors
October 2012 ‘Focus on’ Bermuda Casualty market/Political Risks – Water Scarcity: the Real Liquidity Crisis
July 2012`
‘Focus on Marine Hull Values – Big Ships, Even Bigger Problems?/Political Risks – Post Conflict Countries (Iraq and Kurdistan)
April 2012
‘Focus on’ Oil Insurance Limited/Political Risks in Latin America
January 2012 ‘Focus on’ Managing Risks in Conflict and Post-Conflict Countries
October 2011 ‘Focus on’ Lloyd’s 2012 Energy Liability Business Plans/Political Risks – The ‘Arab Spring’
July 2011`
‘Focus on’ Managing Political Risks
April 2011
‘Focus on’ Well Examination and Assurance/US Oil Spill Legislation update
January 2011 ‘Focus on’ 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Review/2011 Forecast
October 2010 ‘Focus on’ Directors and Offices Insurance for Energy Companies/Oil Spill Legislation update
July 2010`
‘Focus on’ “The New Asbestos?”/London Market Joint Liability Committee Update
April 2010
‘Focus on’ Lloyd’s Three Year Plan/Capital market Developments
January 2010 ‘Focus on’ How the Cargo market can add valued to an Energy Insured
October 2009 ‘Focus on’ The American Clean Energy and Security Act/OIL Update
27
July 2009
‘Focus on’: Lloyd's/P&I Clubs Piracy update
April 2009
‘Focus on’: Captive Insurance Developments/New Lloyd’s Gulf of Mexico reporting requirements/EU ‘Solvency II’ directive/
Capital Market Solutions/Catastrophe Modelling
January 2009 ‘Focus on’: Capital Market Solutions/update on piracy
October 2008 ‘Focus on’: Piracy/Bunkers Convention/Lloyd’s Open Form Salvage Contract/Piper Alpha Disaster 20 Year Anniversary
July 2008
‘Focus on’: IUMI Statistics/‘E Policies’
April 2008
‘Focus on’: Biofuels as an Alternative Energy source/London Market Reform Update/Revised Offshore Gulf of Mexico
Regulations
January 2008
‘Focus on’: The Mining Industry Insurance market/US Terrorism Insurance update/World Risk Review/European Commission
inquiry into Business Insurance
October 2007 ‘Focus on’: New Marine Builders Risk Clauses/London market Reform
July 2007
‘Focus on’: 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season/U.K. Insurance Law Reform
April 2007
‘Focus on’: Kidnap & Ransom Insurance/U.K. Insurance Law Reform/Marine Policy Valuations
January 2007
‘Focus on’: Avoiding Insurance disputes/Marine Insurance Act reaches 100 years of age/U.K. Law Commission review of
Insurance laws
October 2006 ‘Focus on’: Control of Well Insurance
July 2006
‘Focus on’: Alternative solutions to replace or complement the commercial market insurance product/Climate Change – what
risks does it pose to the Insurance market?
April 2006
‘Focus on’: World Economic Forum 2006/Contract Certainty at Inception/Under Insurance – the enemy within
January 2006 ‘Focus on’: Cyber Security and the Energy/Power Industry
October 2005 ‘Focus on’: Oil Spill incidents update
July 2005
‘Focus on’: The benefits of appointing an independent claims consultant/New Standard Loss of Production wording
April 2005
‘Focus on’: Structured Insurance solutions for Energy companies
January 2005 ‘Focus on’: Renewable Energy
28
aBout
LLOYD & PARTNERS
STRUCTURE & SCALE
The Lloyd & Partners Group was established in 2005. Developing and sustaining
market leadership in our core sectors, we rapidly grew to become one of the largest
wholesale insurance brokers of our kind in the world.
We place in excess of USD 1.75 bn of premium into the international insurance and reinsurance markets.
Our clients benefit from our scale, our collaborative approach and our specialist knowledge.
These are the key features of the service we offer, and it’s these features that make us a formidable force in the placement of
global wholesale accounts.
We provide wholesale services for JLT-owned operations and benefit from being part of the JLT Group which provides us with
access to wider skills and products, including the JLT International Network.
OUR VALUES
We love to win. Some say we’re tough. We’re certainly a force to be reckoned with.
One thing’s for certain: we’re dedicated to succeeding together.
We are collaborative. We’re determined to succeed together. We share a unified focus, a collegial way of working, and an
unrelenting determination. We believe that a truly great team can realise even the most ambitious vision.
Our clients benefit from our scale, our collaborative approach and our specialist knowledge. These are the key features of the
service we offer, and it's these features that make us a formidable force in the placement of global wholesale accounts.
Our ‘Client First' approach means we act in your best interests and bring the best of our capabilities to our clients.
These are our values.
Tenacity & Intelligence
Unity & Focus
Strength & Determination
We find challenge irresistible.
Where others see obstacles, we
see opportunity. We are curious.
Innovative. Clever. We always find
the best solution.
We are focused. We work
collaboratively, as a unified force.
We have discipline. Dexterity.
A hunger to win. We are collegial.
We are a great team.
We push harder – for ourselves and
for our clients. We are resolved to go
further, work smarter, do whatever
it takes. In short, we have an
unrelenting commitment to
achieving success.
Positivity | Energy | Dynamism
Clarity | Collegial | Collaboration
Dedication | Commitment | Drive
29
SECTORS & TEAMS
Our teams deliver market-leading solutions across all the sectors we work within.
We achieve this with deep specialist knowledge, a unified focus and our strongly
collegial approach.
We operate in the following sectors offering in-depth expertise and an extensive range of insurance solutions:
•
Energy & Marine
•
Property
•
Cargo, Specie & Fine Art
•
Programmes
•
Healthcare
•
Professional Lines
•
International Casualty
A TRULY GREAT TEAM CAN REALISE
EVEN THE MOST AMBITIOUS VISION.
LIKE ALL TRULY GREAT TEAMS, WE
FIND CHALLENGE IRRESISTIBLE.
LLOYD & PARTNERS IS A LEADING
GLOBAL PROVIDER OF SPECIALIST
INSURANCE SERVICES.
PUT SIMPLY, WE ARE A FORCE TO
BE RECKONED WITH – AND WE ARE
ON YOUR SIDE. WELCOME TO
LLOYD & PARTNERS.
WE HAVE AN UNRIVALLED
TENACITY AND AN
UNRELENTING COMMITMENT
TO ACHIEVING SUCCESS.
This newsletter is compiled and published for the benefit of clients of Lloyd &
Partners Limited. It is intended only to highlight general issues relating to the
subject matter which may be of interest and does not necessarily deal with
every important topic nor cover every aspect of the topics with which it deals.
It is not designed to provide specific advice on the subject matter.
Views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of Lloyd & Partners
Limited unless specifically stated otherwise.
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the content of this
newsletter, neither Lloyd & Partners Limited nor its parent or affiliated or
subsidiary companies accept any responsibility for any error, omission or
Registered Office: The St Botolph Building, 138 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7AW
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7466 6500 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7466 6565
Registered in England No. 02005745 VAT No. 244 2321 96
www.lloydandpartners.com
A Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group company.
Lloyd’s Broker. A company incorporated with liability limited by shares.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
© Juy 2014 Lloyd & Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
268395
YOU ARE OUR FOCUS AND
WE ARE YOUR TEAM.
deficiency. If you intend to take any action or make any decision on the basis of
the content of this newsletter, you should first seek specific professional advice
and verify its content.
If you are interested in utilising the services LPL provide you may be required by
your local regulatory requirements to obtain the services of a local insurance
intermediary in your territory to export insurance and (re)insurance to us unless
you have an exemption and should take advice in this regard.
Please refer to our website for all recent publications:
http://www.lloydandpartners.com/publications/