Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Lloyd's case dismissed by US judge

Wednesday 19 August 1992 18:02 EDT
Comments

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.

LLOYD'S insurance market has won a victory in the latest attempt to bring an action for damages in the US courts, where awards can be far higher than in London.

Judge Morris E Lasker, of the Southern district court in New York, dismissed actions brought by 100 US plaintiffs against the market and against managing and members' agents, a spokesman for the market said.

Judge Lasker agreed with Lloyd's that the contracts signed by the plaintiffs with the market included an agreement to take any dispute with their agents to England.

Lloyd's released excerpts from Judge Lasker's statement in which he said: 'Plaintiffs went to England to become members of a distinctively British entity, invested in syndicates operating out of London and entered numerous contracts all of which stated plainly that Lloyd's affairs and plaintiffs' investment would be administered in England and were subject exclusively to English law, English courts and English arbitration.'

The transactions were international ones, invalidating the US plaintiffs' case that they were illegally deprived of protection under US securities and racketeering laws.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in