b'TABLE OF CONTENTSexpressly identified as such, and the fact thatinsurers. Thereafter, Hanjins liquidator made a failure to comply with such obligations, of course,number of payments out of the liquidation to discharges the insurer from liability; and the usefulvarious parties, including the insured. reminder that notification obligations, particularlyThe lead insurer commenced a recovery action, if they refer to circumstances which may give risebased on rights of subrogation, against the insured to a claim, should be considered carefully,in respect of those amounts, on the basis that it was together with the prospects of a potential claim.entitled to bring those proceedings as lead insurer, and that it represented the interests of all but one Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc vof the following market. That one follower had Textainer Group Holdings Ltd andrefused to allow the lead insurer to act as a others [2021] EWHC 2102 (Comm) representative of its interests. The insured defendant argued that the lead insurer was not Finally, in a case that will be of interest toentitled to act on behalf of the following market or insurers who participate on subscriptionto enforce its own rights without the full policies, RSA v Textainer addressed theparticipation of the following market, and that the question of whether a lead insurer is able toaction was not properly constituted as the insurer bring a claim on behalf of the following market.who had not consented was not a party, as required Rule 19.6 of the Civil Procedure Rulesone the(the insured argued) by CPR 19.3. principal bases for collective actions in thisThe parties agreed that, although the interests of jurisdictionallows a party which has the sameeach insurer subscribing to a particular policy are interest in a claim to bring that claim asthe same, their respective obligations to indemnify representatives of other parties with the samethe insured under the policy are several, not joint, interest therein. Rule 19.3, on which there is littlehowever the claim failed to join one following judicial authority, provides that where ainsurer on the primary layer as it had not consented claimant claims a remedy to which some otherto the claimant acting as its representative. The person is jointly entitled with him, all personsdefendant argued that this failure to join the insurer jointly entitled to the remedy must be partiesmeant that the claim was improperly constituted as unless the Court orders otherwise.per CPR 19.3 as the insurers would be jointly In the present case, the insured had leasedentitled to any remedies. certain containers to a company called HanjinThe Court granted the permission that the lead Shipping Co; the container fleet was insuredinsurer sought, under CPR 19.6, to act in a under an excess of loss insurance program. Whenrepresentative capacity in respect of the other Hanjin entered insolvency, the insured made ainsurers. The Court also held that, although the claim on its policy, and settled the claim, said toparticipating and non-participating insurers had a be worth in excess of US$100 million, with the MAYER BROWN |167'