Fascinating new world

The following bulletin got shared to the market participants and wordings chums yesterday.

Lloyd's Market Association Bulletin

LMA21-027-DP | 22 June 2021

Amendments to LMA Model Clauses

The LMA, on behalf of its members, publishes LMA (and previously NMA and LSW) referenced clauses as model clauses. These clauses are purely illustrative and are published and distributed for the guidance of Lloyd’s managing agents, brokers and other market participants. All contracting parties are free to agree to different conditions/amend the model clauses as they see fit; the LMA does not protect its intellectual property rights over model clauses. It is for underwriters to decide whether or not any contractual language is acceptable on any given risk.

Where an LMA model clause is changed to align with the requirements of the contracting parties, it is no longer the model clause and should not be represented as such. It is currently common practice in the market to change LMA model clauses and highlight this to contracting parties using the words “amended” after the reference, e.g. “LMA5503 (amended)”.

We have increasingly been made aware of examples in which clauses represented as “LMAxxxx (amended)” include changes that fundamentally alter the clause. In such circumstances it is potentially misleading to represent such clauses simply as amendments to the published model clause. This position is exacerbated where amendments are not signposted or supported by a rationale. The LMA does not consider this approach to be of benefit to any of the contracting parties.

Following discussion with the IUA, LMA Non-Marine Committee and the LMA Wordings Steering Group, the LMA has decided to clarify that the model clause reference should not be used when the published version of the model clause has been amended. Where amendments are made to the text of a published model clause, a new reference should be assigned. Where comparison to the relevant model clause would be beneficial as part of a negotiation (e.g. to efficiently highlight a proposed change in coverage) we remain comfortable for model clauses to be cited as a reference point in discussions (e.g. “Broker1234 based on LMA1234”), but the original model clause reference should be removed from the amended clause used in the contract.

Please note, where a clause contains a blank field or otherwise indicates changes are permitted or required, we do not consider completion of the blank field or change in the permitted/required area to be an amendment for the purpose of this bulletin.


That's such an exciting bombshell. And a bit of history gone at the same time.  Mind blogging that it took so long to address this perennial subject in that way. In a way it makes the wordings anorak role even more important.

Must or should? Should is used in the guidance.

My first reaction is that clauses and wordings still need to be registered, which will not be cost-effective. And disruptive hopefully for the better.
Initial thoughts are
-Brokers are underwriters will have to learn new references.
-Registration costs for newly registered wordings and clauses will soar.
-Existing model clauses language and schedule must be tightened up
- Such push makes sense if product wordings are to be digitalised using Coupa or Sequel or other providers for MRC v2.1 purposes. For full wordings, the number of providers is more diverse. It is congruent with the Blueprint 2 instructions : product wordings made simple and easy
- Brokers and underwriters will need the comparative study made by wordings anoraks bringing to life the contractual palimpsests. This will facilitate the new negotiation framework.
- Impact on open market placements and delegated authorities
- Impact on contract endorsements and policy memoranda

On the Aero side of things. the AICG group may extend this principle to the AVN wordings/clauses. 

Fascinating new world: rule by the new wordings rules 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CHOICE OF LAW & JURISDICTION

In the case law HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd vs New Hampshire Insurance Co , it is asserted that where the policy was unlikely to have been regarded as the final record of the parties’ contract, the wording of the slip was in a position to assist in the construction of the policy. However, in the absence of a specified rectification a slip could not be used to alter or contradict the construction of a policy which has superseded a slip. In this context, it is useful to revisit the agreement on law and jurisdiction clauses attaching to (re)insurance products. It is part of a process. Part of a system, linked to controls and risk. Evidently bound by management information risk indicators and a myriad of sourcebooks. Such procedures and guidelines being impacted by supranational directives, regulatory changes, contract law changes, market developments. This Law and jurisdiction clauses in contracts aide memoire outlines the issues that need to be considered when ...
Read more

A brilliant call for reinsurance wordings

The Brexit withdrawal agreement was illegal. Adding to this striking wording contradictions within the document. The wordings rules govern the contingent business interruption cases discussed at a recent FCA judgement. Reinsurance products are to be made simpler to improve the customer experience in accordance with key notes echoing the blueprint documentation. In a world disrupted by all sorts of contingent perils, portfolio transfers and offset rights are in the plenty driving commercial negotiation for program management reinsurers or niche run-off written business classes. Reinsurance wordings are beautiful palimpsests playing a critical role in setting transparently the underwiting guidelines and the claims handling provisions. No geographical limitation. A set of common clauses but not always following a templated structure; there  is a lot of bespoke content with MRC exempt solutions. Educating underwriters, stakeholders and claims colleagues on the added-value in wordings a...
Read more