We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
24 April 2013
The case arose from a tribunal award relating to reinsurance contracts covering losses arising out of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre of September 11 2001. The claimant wrote four retrocession (ie, between reinsurers) excess of loss insurances in favour of the defendants (the 'outward reinsurances'), which in turn wrote 10 reinsurance contracts in favour of certain others (the 'inward reinsurances').
The outward reinsurances covered all business underwritten by the defendants and which the defendants classified as 'aviation'. The policy limits were from $1 million to $3 million on each and every loss (subject to an excess of $100,000), where the total loss exceeded the sum specified in the policies (which ranged from $200 million to $500 million). The outward reinsurances cover was on a 'whole account catastrophe excess of loss' basis, and therefore covered a variety of loss types, including property damage, personal injury and liability claims. The outward reinsurances thus provided cover for large claims in the event of major catastrophes.
Pursuant to Article 4 of London Standard Wording 351, which applied to the outward reinsurances, 'each and every loss' means "each and every loss or accident or occurrence or series thereof arising out of one event".
Following the September 11 2001 hijackings and the subsequent attacks in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania, lawsuits were commenced against American Airlines and United Airlines as the operators involved. Claims were also commenced against security companies Globe Aviation Services Corporation (which had provided screening services for the aircraft operated by American Airlines) and Huntleigh USA Corporation (which had provided screening services for the aircraft operated by United Airlines). The personal injury and wrongful death claims were the subject of settlements approved by District Judge Hellerstein in the Southern District of New York. These claims were split between the airlines and the security companies.
Each of the inward reinsurances was settled on the basis that the attacks on the World Trade Centre were occurrences arising from two events. At the tribunal and when appealing the tribunal's award, the claimants reasoned that in the context of liability under the outward reinsurances, those attacks were occurrences arising from a single event.
The judge considered the tribunal's award, noting its consideration of the known facts of each of the hijackings as determined by the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.
The two leading cases on the understanding of an event are the Dawson's Field arbitration and Kuwait Airways Corporation,(1) which set out and developed the relevant tests to be applied. For a factual situation to amount to a cause arising "out of one event", an informed observer in the position of the insured would have to have determined that the attacks arose as a single event, and in doing so would have reference to the "degree of unity in relation to cause, locality, time, and, if initiated by human action, the circumstances and purposes of the person responsible".
The tribunal concurred with the findings in respect of the relevant underlying claims and the outward reinsurances followed. The authorities make it clear that a plan – which there undoubtedly was in relation to the September 11 attacks – cannot constitute an event. While the two attacks on the World Trade Centre did have similarities in timing and manner, the losses arose from two separate hijackings of two separate aircraft which were then used to attack two separate buildings (albeit that the two buildings were on the same complex and were connected), with neither attack reliant on the other.
Two occurrences (of personal injury and death) arose out of two events of successful hijackings by the perpetrators of the attacks.
The claimant sought to overturn the arbitral award on the following grounds:
The judge considered the claimant's grounds for overturning the award and found as follows:
The judge concluded that the tribunal had applied the law correctly, had regard to all material facts and did not take into account impermissible considerations. The claimant's appeal was dismissed.(2)
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.