Category Legal Affairs

Enforceability of the sanctions exception in policies (UK)

26 November 2018 Patrick Bracher, Norton Rose Fulbright
Patrick Bracher

Patrick Bracher

An awaited decision on the enforceability of the sanctions provision in policies of insurance heard in the UK courts has turned out to be of not much general assistance.

The English High Court found that, although an insurer is not liable to pay a claim where the payment would be prohibited under EU or US law and thus ‘would expose’ the insurers to a sanction, in the context, the EU sanctions did not apply because payment of the claim is no longer prohibited under the recent EU rules. In addition the consequences under US law were deferred under a wind-down clause to 4 November 2018 and therefore did not expose the particular defendants to a sanction within the meaning of the sanctions clause.

The judgment is helpful in finding that the ‘Sanction Limitation and Exclusion Clause’ in policies refers to being ‘exposed to sanctions’ and not ‘exposed to the risk of being sanctioned’.

Before a sanction can lawfully be applied to a reinsurer they must be guilty of conduct which is prohibited. The government agency charged with applying sanctions may or may not decide to penalise the prohibited conduct with a sanction.

It is necessary for the insurer, on the usual wording, to show that the payment of the insurance claim in question is conduct which is prohibited by the applicable US or EU law or regulation. The standard clause provides that the insurer is not liable to pay a claim where payment would be prohibited under the named systems of law as a fact (and not as a risk).

On the facts of this case the defendant insurers were unable to discharge the burden of proof to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the intended use of the steel which was imported into Iran and stolen fell within one of the stated exceptions (for example military use). In addition, there is nothing in the sanctions clause which purports to extinguish a claim. The clause provides that ‘to the extent that’ the payment of the claim would expose the insurer to sanction, the insurer is not liable to pay the claim. If the law changes and the insurer is again liable to pay the claim under the policy, payment must be made. In the meantime, that liability is suspended.

In the circumstances, if a different outcome is required by insurers of the sanctions clause, the wording should be changed so that the risk of sanctions is sufficient and the claim is extinguished and not suspended (assuming policyholders will agree to that provision).

The case is Mamancochet Mining Limited v Aegis Managing Agency Limited and Others.

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Quick Polls


In navigating the dynamic landscape of financial intermediaries in 2024, which strategy do you believe is most crucial for success?


Prioritising client needs
Embracing technological advancements
Staying abreast of regulatory developments
All of the above
fanews magazine
FAnews February 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

On the insurance industry’s radar in 2024
Insurers, risk managers unsure of AI’s judgement credentials
Is offshore the place to be in 2024?
Gap claims: erosion of medical benefits, soaring specialist fees
Investments and retirement… is conventional wisdom under threat?
Subscribe now