Key Facts
- •Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd and other reinsurers (Claimants) sought summary judgment against Afghan Global Insurance Ltd and Anham (Defendants) regarding liability under two reinsurance policies.
- •The policies covered property damage at a warehouse in Afghanistan, lost due to Taliban seizure in 2021.
- •Anham, the original insured, claimed indemnity for the loss under the AGI policy.
- •Reinsurers argued the loss fell under exclusion clause 4.2, excluding losses caused by seizure.
- •Anham argued the exclusion only applied to seizure by a governing authority, not the Taliban.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles (CPR 24.3; Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch); AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098)
CPR 24.3, Easyair, AC Ward
Contractual interpretation principles (FCA v Arch [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm); Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24)
FCA v Arch, Wood v Capita
Interpretation of insurance policies, considering commercial context and the insured's expertise (Brian Leighton (Garages) Ltd v Allianz Insurance Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 8)
Brian Leighton
Exclusion clauses define the scope of cover, not create exemptions (Impact Funding Solutions v Barrington Services Ltd [2016] UKSC 57)
Impact Funding Solutions
Meaning of "seizure" in insurance context (Kuwait Airways Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 803 (HL))
Kuwait Airways
Noscitur a sociis principle of construction
FCA v Arch
Principles of construing insurance contracts, considering the factual matrix and commercial purpose
Various cases cited
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted to Reinsurers.
The court found the exclusion clause 4.2 unambiguous; "seizure" has its ordinary meaning, including seizure by non-governing authorities. Anham's arguments regarding the factual matrix and commercial purpose were rejected.