In a judgment handed down on 23 April 2026, WRBC Corporate Member Limited v AXA XL Syndicate & Others [2026] EWHC 939, Mr Justice Waksman ruled in favour of the reinsured in a significant Commercial Court dispute arising from pandemic-related event cancellations.

Background

The claimant, WRBC Corporate, bought claims against multiple reinsurers for indemnities and payments pursuant to two multi-line excess of loss reinsurance treaties.

WRBC’s financial stakes were substantial, totalling US$177m on a 100% basis, with a net claim against the reinsurers of approximately US$61m. 

The two issues

The construction issue

Fundamentally, the dispute related to how the word ‘event’ should be construed in the limits clause in the treaties. 

The limits clause in the treaties provided for the relevant limits and retentions to be applied:

“each and every loss, any one risk, or each and every loss or series of losses arising out of one event.”

However, the definitions section of the treaties also contained a definition of ‘any one event’ stated to mean:

“…any one Conference or Exhibition or convention or any other ‘Event’ accepted by the Reinsured including the period of installation or dismantling and arrangements directly connected with the ‘Event’.”

Reinsurers argued that on this basis, the relevant loss or series of losses arose from each individual cancelled conference, meaning there could be no aggregation and the US$1m deductible must be applied to each of the 174 losses claimed. Since most of those losses were for sums under US$1m, this would have meant the reinsurers bore no liability for the majority of them. 

WRBC’s contrasting position, was that 'event' in the limits clause should be construed in a causal sense (referring to the governmental or public health measure which caused multiple conferences to be cancelled) thereby permitting the aggregation of all losses flowing from the same causative measure.

The court applied a well-established contractual principle. They asserted that an insurance policy must be interpreted objectively by asking what a reasonable person, with all background knowledge available to the parties at the time of contracting, would understand the language to mean. The subjective intention of the party was irrelevant.  

The court sided with WRBC’s construction of the Limits Clause and confirmed that 'event' is to be construed as meaning the event which causes the relevant losses, rather than in the terms of the 'any one event' definition.

The aggregation issue

The aggregation issue was concerned with the amount of monies due from the reinsurers in respect of the 174 individual losses claimed, each in respect of a separate cancelled conference, assembly or similar event. 

The court confirmed that a “significant” causal connection between the measures (restrictions) imposed and each cancellation was required, though the measure need not be the only or proximate cause.  

The court then assessed each of the 174 individual losses across seven jurisdictions, determining in each case whether a relevant governmental measure constituted an effective cause of cancellation.  

The effect was that WRBC recovered an indemnity for circa US$49.5m, plus interest in the sum of US$23.8m payable under a late payments clause in the treaties.

Implications for insurers and reinsurers

This judgment represents a significant development for the reinsurance market in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The court's ruling on the construction issue and the meaning and interpretation of ‘event’ in limits clauses, has important implications for the further interpretation of aggregation provisions in multi-line reinsurance contracts. 

The decision confirms that where catastrophic events such as pandemics cause widespread governmental intervention, losses flowing from that intervention may (depending upon the precise wording) properly be aggregated under a single deductible, provided the requisite causal link is established on the facts.