Royal Sun Alliance

[Mr S]

We need to hammer them with emails. They have a Facebook site so go on there and start demanding answers. Let them know we are after them.

 

RSA is the second-largest general insurer in the United Kingdom. Its global headquarters are in the City of London on Fenchurch Street and the headquarters of its UK operations are on Leadenhall Street. Its registered office is in St Mark's Court, Horsham. Other key UK offices are located in Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Chelmsford, Glasgow, Cardiff, Sunderland, Belfast, Peterborough, Halifax, Croydon, Stirling and Birmingham.

We need to hammer them with emails. They have a Facebook site so go on there and start demanding answers. Let them know we are after them.

[Cobs]

they're gonna claim they're not permitted under the Data Protection Act to release any client data

[Cobs]

at the new inquest (which the AG is gonna have to call) this info needs to be subpoena'd

[matty]

at the new inquest (which the AG is gonna have to call) this info needs to be subpoena'd

 

They'll say, I am guessing, that it is required by them in order to potentially defend claims, that it is subject to privilege, and releasing it would prejudice that ability - some lengthy legal arguments around that, i would also guess.

 

If (when) there are renewed negligence claims against SWFC, they will have to produce it, no?

[Mr S]

RSA just posted this on their Facebook site in relation to my asking why they hadn't given documents to Inquiry. I find it confusing.

 

RSA Insurance Group wrote: "Stephen, the Panel's Terms of Reference related to the disclosure of documents held by public bodies and did not apply to any of the private bodies involved. However, we willingly co-operated with the Panel, disclosing all relevant materials in our possession. Jon"

[Falconhoof]

excuse my ignorance, what are we expecting to find in the insurers documents. I understand we want full disclosure of all relevant details, just what is particular about insurance records ?

Edited September 13, 2012 by Tony Le Mesmer

[Gunga Din]

excuse my ignorance, what are we expecting to find in the insurers documents. I understand we want full disclosure of all relevant details, just what is particular about insurance records ?

 

perhaps why it lost its safety certificate?? if the insurance company had concerns and werent willing to insure the club, then what were these concerns? were there other claims in the past and these issues led to or played apart in the disaster. theres a lot that can be in these reports

[NeilJ]

they're gonna claim they're not permitted under the Data Protection Act to release any client data

Their clients were SWFC, it was for SWFC to decide whether or not to waive privilege or allow its data to be disclosed.

[Maldini]

I'm speculating wildly here, but if SWFC went to the FA looking for compensation for lost earnings chances are they tried to claim insurance to repair the stadium. Perhaps the details of those claims were damaging to the club.

[matty]

perhaps why it lost its safety certificate?? if the insurance company had concerns and werent willing to insure the club, then what were these concerns? were there other claims in the past and these issues led to or played apart in the disaster. theres a lot that can be in these reports

 

Who is saying they weren't willing to insure SWFC? They were the insurer, I thought this was well-known.

 

What RSA may have is information about the state of the stadium that pre-dates 15/4/89, as well as statements and evidence post the disaster, which they would obviously have collected and used through the other civil cases.

 

I would be surprised if RSA knew it didn't have a safety certificate and still were content to offer them cover. That's usually a central condition of cover - that the insured is acting at all times within its legal and regulatory responsibilities.

[Mr S]

Who is saying they weren't willing to insure SWFC? They were the insurer, I thought this was well-known.

 

What RSA may have is information about the state of the stadium that pre-dates 15/4/89, as well as statements and evidence post the disaster, which they would obviously have collected and used through the other civil cases.

 

I would be surprised if RSA knew it didn't have a safety certificate and still were content to offer them cover. That's usually a central condition of cover - that the insured is acting at all times within its legal and regulatory responsibilities.

Exactly

[SkippyjonJones]

It is also possible that the insurance would only be valid if SW obtained a safety cert. The insurance would still be issued anyway and SW would provide it later - not having all the docs are the begining of the insurance isn't unusual (especially if it is a multi year policy). Royal not not have checked to see if they ever recieved the cert. Or it may have checked and not done anythign about it. Or it may have remined SW and they didn;t bother getting it done.

You can't tell unless the underwriting file is ever produced - and that file belongs to the Underwriter - not to SWFC. IF SWFC were sued then it may be possible to get the file - plus that of the broker if there was one. until that point it remains confidential, which is why Royal wouldn't have released it.

[RaoulD]

Who is saying they weren't willing to insure SWFC? They were the insurer, I thought this was well-known.

 

What RSA may have is information about the state of the stadium that pre-dates 15/4/89, as well as statements and evidence post the disaster, which they would obviously have collected and used through the other civil cases.

 

I would be surprised if RSA knew it didn't have a safety certificate and still were content to offer them cover. That's usually a central condition of cover - that the insured is acting at all times within its legal and regulatory responsibilities.

 

I think the documentation is more likely to be advice from lawyers about potential liability of SWFC as the occupier of the stadium and any evidence gathered by them for the purposes of legal proceedings. They would have a duty of care to visitors which would have been covered by a public liability insurance policy. RSA may have also sought advice on potential grounds for avoiding liability under the insurance policy. This advice is usually subject to legal professional privilege and is not disclosable unless the privilege is waived (which rarely happens). The HIP asked for the documents but RSA decided not to waive privilege (possibly because if there is now a claim against SWFC they might have to re-visit the question of avoiding the policy).

[honourablegeorge]

RSA just posted this on their Facebook site in relation to my asking why they hadn't given documents to Inquiry. I find it confusing.

 

RSA Insurance Group wrote: "Stephen, the Panel's Terms of Reference related to the disclosure of documents held by public bodies and did not apply to any of the private bodies involved. However, we willingly co-operated with the Panel, disclosing all relevant materials in our possession. Jon"

 

 

Well the first part is untrue, since as I understand it, the Panel had no legal powers really, so disclosure was based on cooperation. And the secomd part is untrue, because it f***ing says so in the report.

 

Maybe post this, see what they thing. Couldn't be any clearer that they didn't cooperate.

 

Edited September 13, 2012 by honourablegeorge

[Earl Hafler]

Who is saying they weren't willing to insure SWFC? They were the insurer, I thought this was well-known.

 

What RSA may have is information about the state of the stadium that pre-dates 15/4/89, as well as statements and evidence post the disaster, which they would obviously have collected and used through the other civil cases.

 

I would be surprised if RSA knew it didn't have a safety certificate and still were content to offer them cover. That's usually a central condition of cover - that the insured is acting at all times within its legal and regulatory responsibilities.

 

The state of the stadium is partly made ' clear ' in documents not held by RSA. For one, the engineers who appraised the capacity of the pens in the Leppings Lane end, and also SWFC should have records. Also the gradient of the slope into the pens was steeper than recommended guidelines.

 

RSA should have known the validity of the safety certificate. The FA didn't check. Maybe the RSA asked verbally, if at all ?

[NeilJ]

I think the documentation is more likely to be advice from lawyers about potential liability of SWFC as the occupier of the stadium and any evidence gathered by them for the purposes of legal proceedings. They would have a duty of care to visitors which would have been covered by a public liability insurance policy. RSA may have also sought advice on potential grounds for avoiding liability under the insurance policy. This advice is usually subject to legal professional privilege and is not disclosable unless the privilege is waived (which rarely happens). The HIP asked for the documents but RSA decided not to waive privilege (possibly because if there is now a claim against SWFC they might have to re-visit the question of avoiding the policy).

If SWFC was the ultimate client though, which it was, it's not for RSA to decide whether or not to waive privilege, is it?

Privilege vests in the client, not the adviser.

Edited September 13, 2012 by NeilJ

[RaoulD]

If SWFC was the ultimate client though, which it was, it's not for RSA to decide whether or not to waive privilege, is it?

Privilege vests in the client, not the adviser.

You misunderstand the nature of an insurance contract. SWFC are not RSA's clients in a legal sense and RSA are not SWFC's advisers. RSA effectively indemnify SWFC under the insurance contract between them and have their own legal advisors and privilege in relation to that contract (as would SWFC). The advice RSA receive from their lawyers is privileged and it is for RSA to decide whether or not to waive it.

[kop205]

You misunderstand the nature of an insurance contract. SWFC are not RSA's clients in a legal sense and RSA are not SWFC's advisers. RSA effectively indemnify SWFC under the insurance contract between them and have their own legal advisors and privilege in relation to that contract (as would SWFC). The advice RSA receive from their lawyers is privileged and it is for RSA to decide whether or not to waive it.

 

Don't really understand all of it, but regardless it doesn;t change the fact that they seem to have been the only major organisation to not cooperate - to any degree - with the Panel.

 

They can therefore f*** off.