Re British Aviation Insurance Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
JudgeMr. Justice Lewison
Judgment Date21 July 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWHC 1621 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: 165 of 2005
Date21 July 2005

[2005] EWHC 1621 (Ch)




Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Mr. Justice Lewison

Case No: 165 of 2005

In the Matter of the British Aviation Insurance Company Limited

Mr. Gabriel Moss QC and Mr Daniel Bayfield (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the Petitioner

Mr. Richard Sheldon QC & Ms Hilary Stonefrost (instructed by Covington & Burling) for the Opposing Creditors

Miss. Rosalind Nicholson (instructed by Edwin Coe) for United Technologies Corporation & Ors

Hearing dates: 7 th, 11 th, & 13 th July 2005


I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic

Mr. Justice Lewison Mr. Justice Lewison



The Company and its business


Pollution and asbestos claims


The scheme


Procedural history


Ascertaining policyholders


The meeting is summoned


The meeting


The opposing policyholders and their objections


The opposing policyholders


The grounds of opposition


The legal framework


The statutory provisions




The first stage: summoning the meeting


What is a class?


The second stage: the scheme meeting


The third stage: sanctioning the scheme


Was adequate notice of the first-stage application given?


Were the classes of creditors correctly identified?


Was adequate notice of the second stage (Scheme Meeting) given?


Did the explanatory memorandum adequately explain the contents of the scheme?


Was the meeting properly and fairly conducted?


Did the votes cast adequately represent the views of the creditors?


Low turnout


Special interests


Treatment of IBNR claims


Are the terms of the scheme fair?


The Bar Date


Estimation Methodology


Adjudication process


Reversion to run off


Other criticisms


Should I, as a matter of discretion, sanction the scheme?




Benefits of the scheme






The British Aviation Insurance Company Ltd ("the Company") was incorporated in 1930. As its name suggests, it writes insurance and reinsurance in the aviation sector. Since 1 January 2002 it has ceased to write any new business; and has been in run-off. The Company is a private company, owned directly or indirectly by three major insurance companies: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc (57.10%); AVIVA plc (38.14%) and AXA Investment Managers UK Holdings Ltd (4.76%).


The Company applies to the court for the sanction of a scheme of arrangement which it proposes to make with some of its creditors, in relation to certain classes of insurance and reinsurance business. The proposed scheme does not encompass the whole of the Company's business. The scheme has been notified to the Financial Services Authority, which raises no objection from a regulatory point of view. The scheme is opposed by a number of creditors. I am told that this is the first case in which a scheme of this kind, in relation to a solvent insurer, has been opposed. The grounds of opposition are directed both at the court's jurisdiction to sanction the scheme; and at the merits (or lack of them) of the scheme itself which, it is said, should persuade the court, as a matter of discretion, to refuse to sanction the scheme.

The Company and its business


The Company wrote mainly aviation direct business or facultative reinsurance and was a recognised lead underwriter in the aviation risks in which it participated. The categories of risk underwritten by the Company (both directly and as reinsurer) included the following: hull; war risks; liability for passengers; third parties and baggage/cargo; airport liabilities; product liability cover; personal accident cover; loss of licence and cargo all risks insurance. The Company's main potential liabilities affected by the scheme are claims and potential claims by policyholders in the USA under product liability and general liability insurance covering potential exposure to claims arising out of exposure to asbestos, pollution and other health hazards.


The Company also underwrote business through a Canadian branch from 1942 until the branch went into run off on 1 January 2002. Although the Company issued some 9,500 policies to Canadian residents after 1985, it is likely that there are currently only two Canadian resident creditors likely to be affected by the scheme; with known claims arising under business written by the Canadian branch with an aggregate reserve of CAN $360,000.


The evidence in support of the petition includes a table of the Company's estimated liabilities:

Claim type

Estimated liability before reinsurance (£m)

% of total







Hull and Liability



Health hazard and other










The Company says that about 92 per cent of its asbestos liabilities are owed to direct insureds, all of whom are resident in the USA. The remaining 8 per cent of these liabilities arise under reinsurance policies issued by the Company. Mr Cracknell (a director of the Company) says that the Company has "current claims" arising under Scheme Business from 459 policyholders, the majority of which are in the USA and the UK, most of whom will have more than one claim.


The Company is solvent. Its audited balance sheet as at 31 December 2004 shows total assets of £227,136,000 as against total liabilities to third parties of £125,997,000. The Company's total net assets in respect of all its business, including Scheme Business, were more than £100 million. This is just under double its estimated liabilities for Scheme Business.


The insurance and reinsurance policies underwritten by or on behalf of the Company for the United States and Canadian aviation industry that comprise the Scheme Business were primarily policies of a kind called "occurrence" policies. This type of policy provides unlimited prospective coverage against claims relating to the risks covered by the policy (for example, asbestos, chemical and product liability) as long as the underlying act or omission happened during the relevant policy period. These claims (known as long-tail claims) typically arise and are asserted years or even decades after the claimant's latent exposure to the allegedly hazardous substance. This kind of policy is to be contrasted with a "claims made" policy, which covers only claims made during the period covered by the policy. An "occurrence" policy is a particularly valuable kind of policy, for which policyholders are prepared to pay (and did pay) a higher premium.


The kind of business covered by the scheme is principally related to the amounts claimed in the United States of America from U.S. policyholders and others under product liability and general liability insurance in respect of potential exposures to various environmental type liabilities such as Asbestos, Pollution and related Health Hazard (AHP liabilities). These potential claims are covered under occurrence policies.


Occurrence policies (at least for these kinds of claims) are no longer available in the market at any price.


Claims under insurance or reinsurance contracts of this kind may fall into one of three classes:

i) "unsettled paid claims". These are losses for which the Company would be liable to indemnify a policyholder under an insurance or reinsurance contract, where the amount of the claim has already been ascertained, and the liabilities both of the policyholder to the claimant and of the Company to the policyholder have been established;

ii) "outstanding losses". These are claims that have been reported to a policyholder and for which the Company may be liable to indemnify the policyholder under a contract of insurance or reinsurance, but where there is not yet any established liability; and neither the quantum of the claim nor the Company's liability to indemnify the policyholder has yet been agreed; and

iii) "incurred but not reported" claims ("IBNR claims"). These are potential claims where the event giving rise to the policyholder's liability (e.g. exposure to asbestos) has already taken place, but where no claim has yet been made against the policyholder or reported to the Company.


The Company has met and continues to meet its contractual liabilities in full. If the scheme is not sanctioned, there is no reason to suppose that it would not continue to do so in the future. The Company has promoted the scheme on the basis that it is solvent and is able to meet all its liabilities in full. Its estimated liabilities in relation to business covered by the scheme are some £53 million ($93 million).


It is an important consideration that the scheme does not include the whole of the business written by the Company. As regards business excluded from the scheme, the Company will remain in conventional solvent run-off.

Pollution and asbestos claims


It is common ground that asbestos related injuries are often latent for long periods before their existence becomes known; and the most serious asbestos related diseases, mesothelioma and lung cancer, usually do not appear until 30 or 40 years after exposure. In the aviation sector, the products which are typically alleged to have caused asbestos related diseases are brakes and other friction products, together with gaskets. Exposure to asbestos in aircraft hangars can also give rise to claims. The majority of claims are made by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Scottish Lion Insurance Company Ltd, Petitioner
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Inner House)
    • 8 March 2011
    ...of a contested hearing on issues relating to the valuation of claims was well known: see Re British Aviation Insurance Co LtdUNK ([2006] BCC 14) and Re Sovereign Marine and General Insurance CoUNK ([2007] EWHC 1331 (Ch)). The statutory procedure by which an arrangement became binding involv......
  • Scottish Lion Insurance Company Ltd, Petitioner
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Inner House - Extra Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Re:Ballantyne RE Plc & The Companies Act 2014
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 June 2019
    ...... 9, CHAPTER 1 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2014 Company and Commercial Law – Companies Act 2014 – Scheme of Arrangement – ...Justice Kelly) in Re Colonia Insurance (Ireland) Ltd [2005] 1 IR 497 (‘ Colonia ’). That involved a ...Justice Lewison, as he was, in the case of Re British Aviation Insurance Co. Ltd [2005] EWHC 1621 (Ch). There are just two ......
  • Re Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Company Ltd and other companies
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 12 July 2007
    ...scheme of arrangement proposed by The British Aviation Insurance Company Limited which was considered by Lewison J in Re The British Aviation Insurance Company Limited [2006] BCC 14 ("BAIC") which I will need to consider in detail in due course. Out of the total London Market cove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • The Applicability Of Solvent Schemes Of Arrangement To German Portfolios
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 23 April 2008
    ...scheme. Indeed, creditors have been making such objections with increasing frequency (see British Aviation Insurance Company Limited [2005] EWHC 1621 (Ch) and Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company [2006] BCC 774 also known as WFUM). Hence, it can be argued that as creditors are e......
  • Different Rights Require Different Classes – Schemes Of Arrangement
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 10 December 2018 consult together with a view to their common interest. In his judgment, Hildyard J referred to Re British Aviation Insurance Co Ltd [2006] 1 BCLC 665 (the BAIC case) which also considered whether accrued claims should be in the same class as IBNR claimants. In the BAIC case, Lewison J co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT