Lloyd's names warned of legal action 'boomerang'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NAMES on Gooda Walker syndicates, among the worst affected by losses at Lloyd's, will be caught by a 'boomerang effect' if they carry out their threat to sue, the insurance market's errors and omissions underwriters said yesterday.
Some of the Gooda Walker syndicates that insured against the natural catastrophes of 1989 also underwrote syndicates that were insuring members' agents against damages claims.
So if Lloyd's names win in court they will have to pay up through the agents' insurance, anyway. They would 'feel much more pain than they currently feel', said the steering committee in a document released by David Rowland, chairman of Lloyd's. He said the underwriters were concerned that names had not had a clear description of the true situation.
The Lloyd's Names Association Working Party called the release of the document a last-ditch attempt to rescue a settlement offer rejected by the membership of all but one of the names' action groups.
The Macmillan action group also said Lloyd's had admitted that the revised settlement offer to its members was wrongly calculated.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments