A year of account of a Lloyd’s syndicate which has been left open after the date at which that account would normally have been closed by reinsurance. See OPEN YEAR.
***
A year of account which has not been closed as at the date at which it would normally have been closed and which remains open.

A reinsurance provision under which the reinsurer, despite cancellation of the treaty, remains liable under policies still current at the date of cancellation.

The potential liability of a losses-occurring liability insurer in respect of occurrences that occurred while they were on risk being reported as claims after the expiry of their policy. Contrast with claims-made policy where the run-off risk attaches to the insured who may be faced with a claim after the policy has terminated. See LONG-TAIL.

Granted by Lloyd’s to certain run-off companies and managing agents to conduct the run-offs of Lloyd’s syndicates. These run-offs arise from open years not closed by reinsurance to close.

a Lloyd’s syndicate which has been unable to close in the normal way by paying a reinsurance to close premium.
***
A syndicate with one or more run-off years of account.

An International Hull Clause, officially called 3/4ths Collision Liability. It extends the policy to cover threefourths of the shipowner’s legal liability to damage to other vessels, freight and their cargo, and general average where the insured vessel has collided with another vessel. Up to 3/4ths of legal costs are also payable. Settlements are on a cross-liability basis. The remaining part and other risks (e.g. loss of life) are insured in Protection and Indemnity Clubs.

For the purposes of particular average each series is to be made up of packages landed consecutively. See TAIL SERIES.

A situation where an insurer is no longer underwriting new business but continues to meet its liabilities under existing contracts that are running off.

A case creating a strict liability for an occupier of land who brings and keeps on his land a ‘mischievous thing’ that later escapes and causes damage or injury no matter how careful he has been. In recent times unsuccessful attempts have been made to apply the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to secure compensation on a strict liability basis for pollutants that have seeped from the defendant’s land. The strict liability rule arises only when there has been ‘non-natural’ use of the land.