Slavery Reparations

[liadnan]

Lloyd's of London sued for underwriting slave transports. Interesting. Almost certainly doomed to failure, on any one of a number of grounds, and I'd say quite rightly so, but interesting none the less.

I'd like to know a little more though. For one thing, are they suing the Corporation or the Society's current members? Is the corporation itself effectively underwritten for such things by its members?

Comments

[greyarea.livejournal.com]

I presumed that names would be liable for this, yes, but I suppose that might not be the case.

It's an interesting one. I'm not entirely sure what they are suing *for* TBH - presuming Lloyds weren't underwritting the ships after slavery became illegal, then surely they can't retrospectively fine them for it?

Most odd.

[liadnan]

Well, actually I think it's entirely possible slaveships continued to be underwritten at Lloyds after slavery was declared to be illegal in the UK.

But there are rather difficult questions about identity. How can a present-day underwriter be liable, being a sole trader, for the actions of a previous underwriter *except when*, of course, they are in a chain of Re-Insurance to Close, whereby one years syndicates take over the liabilities of the previous year but that wouldn't apply here as no one is suing on an insurance contract, they're suing in tort.

As for suing the Corporation of Lloyd's.. there are so many drastic differences between the way the Society and Corporation are set up now as opposed to then that I see huge problems there, and in any event the Corporation exists to run the Society, which is where the money is made, not the other way around.

That's even before you get into limitation, proof of damage, causation and remoteness...

[greyarea.livejournal.com]

I bow to your vastly superior knowledge on the way Lloyds works (didn't you do some work pertaining to the names a year or so back? Infact, it was on the reinsurance to close stuff, IIRC?). The names' liabilty would (I'm guessing) depend on what exactly they sign up for when they become a name - whether it's solely for liabilities arising from insurance, or whether they're liable for all charges Lloyds faces. I'd presumed it would be the latter, but I suppose that may well not be the case.

I think the claims are arising from the late 1700s which would predate the abolition of slavery in the England and the US, but I stand to be corrected about that (the guardian site had a bigger story on it, but it appears to be down at the moment).

Leaving all that aside, however, I agree with the rest of the problems you highlight. An uphill battle, one would have thought. Although possibly not the first Fagan has faced.

didn't you do some work pertaining to the names a year or so back?

[liadnan]

Only in a verrry minor way. But I do think the unique, and frankly insanely complicated, way that Lloyd's is set up and works makes it difficult to see how the case would work. We shall see...