Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Christopher Butcher QC and Stephen Kenny (instructed by Lovells) for the Claimants Alistair Schaff QC and David Edwards (instructed by Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: ____________________
As respects Garst, the effect of this provision was to cause the separate interests of Garst to be insured severally from those of other AstraZeneca subsidiaries.
Article 19 provided that the Reinsurance should be interpreted and governed by the laws of England, and Article 20 provided for disputes to be resolved by Arbitration in London.
(1) Absent settlement of its claim, Garst would have exercised its right under the US service-of-suit clause in the underlying ELP, and would have commenced proceedings in Iowa, where it had its headquarters and principal place of business.
(2) There would have been a right for AZICL to have applied to have the case transferred to a US District Court or another US State Court of competent jurisdiction, but the Tribunal doubted whether that right would have been exercised.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.