G.O.B. Blamed, but Legislation Provides Immunity

Andrew Marshalleck

The total liability at the time of the CLICO shutdown was about four million dollars, but the Government is not inclined to pay as the claimants are asking them to. Their excuse lies in the Insurance Act, which contains an immunity clause shielding the government from similar liabilities. But Marshalleck contends that they should follow the examples of Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas and Barbados, who have paid out for similar policies for CLICO clients in those countries.

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for CLICO Policyholders

“The Court of Appeal in fact found that the Supervisor acted in breach – there was a statutory duty in licensing CLICO year after year without these reserves being in place. But the Insurance Act goes on, in Section four (3), to provide for an immunity from suit to the Minister and the Supervisor where they act in pursuance of functions under the Act, in what the Act calls good faith. So what there is, is an immunity provision; we’re past that there was wrongdoing. We’re saying now notwithstanding that there was wrongdoing, the Act also protects me from having to pay damages. And they are relying on that immunity provision to escape from the consequences of their acknowledged failure in doing what they were supposed to do in regulating CLICO.”

The C.C.J. panel has reserved its decision in the case.