In two recent decisions, the High Court had to consider which dispute resolution provisions prevailed in circumstances where the parties had agreed a reinsurance policy on the Market Reform Contract (MRC) and then subsequently issued a further document covering the same subject matter but on a different form – the Market Uniform Reinsurance Agreement (MURA). The MRC provided for disputes to be resolved by English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts and the MURA contained a New York law and arbitration clause.
The court came to different conclusions in each case based on slightly different fact patterns. These decisions provide an important reminder to the insurance market to be cautious when issuing and executing market standard contracts – and similar lessons can be read across to other sectors that regularly contract using market standard forms. Dispute resolution provisions, in particular, are often not given the attention they deserve at the point of contracting but any conflict or uncertainty can give rise to costly jurisdiction disputes.
For more information see this post on our Insurance Notes blog.
Key contacts
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.