Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
English Insurance Law
Margaret Hemsworth *
CASES
127. Al Mana Lifestyle Trading LLC v United Fidelity Insurance Co PSC 1
Contract interpretation—jurisdiction
The claimant insured sought recovery for business interruption losses arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. The claimant was in fact a group of companies operating in the Middle East, with no business being conducted in England and Wales. The defendant insurer operated in the Gulf states of United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait. The policies were written in those states. An issue arose as to the appropriate jurisdiction.
The policy contained an express provision on jurisdiction which read:
“Applicable law and jurisdiction
In accordance with the jurisdiction, local laws and practices of the country in which the policy
is issued. Otherwise England and Wales UK Jurisdiction shall be applied.2
Under liability jurisdiction will be extended to worldwide excluding USA and Canada.”
The claimant contended that the provision gave free choice as to jurisdiction: either the local court or England and Wales. The insurer contended that the primary place of jurisdiction was that of the courts local to the place where the policy had been written; that England and Wales would only be appropriate if the local court did not have or would not accept jurisdiction. The judge at first instance had accepted that the claimant’s interpretation was the more likely interpretation of the policy wording. The insurer appealed.
The insurer contended that the opening wording was imperative in nature and that choice of law was a powerful factor in also determining jurisdiction.3 The claimant contended that the judge had been correct to treat the word “otherwise” as synonymous with “or”, that there was no wording to indicate that England and Wales would be an appropriate forum only if the local courts had declined jurisdiction and that to so conclude could give rise to disagreement and delay. Further, commercial common sense meant that the wording was to be construed to allow a single neutral place of jurisdiction.
* Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Exeter.
1. [2023] EWCA Civ 61; [2023] Lloyd’s Rep IR 359 (CA, Civ Div: Males, Andrews, Nugee LJJ); rvsg [2022] EWHC 2049 (Comm); [2022] Lloyd’s IR Plus 36 (QB, Comm Ct: Cockerill J).
2. The punctuation in fact showed this as a comma rather than the full stop here shown; the court accepted that was merely a typographical error.
3. Referring to Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 401; [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1; [2015] 1 CLC 901; Generali Italia SpA v Pelagic Fisheries Corp [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm); [2020] Lloyd’s Rep IR 466; [2020] 1 WLR 4211; AIG Europe SA v John Wood Group Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 781; [2022] Lloyd’s Rep IR 561, [62].
66