CCJ verdict goes against former policy holders of British American Insurance

In the wake of a ruling on October 22, 2024 by the Caribbean Court of Justice in which a claim brought by policy holders of British American Insurance Company was dismissed, the local Case Managers of the policy holders (BACOL), Kay Bacchus-Baptiste and Louise Mitchell have issued the following statement:

The judgement in the case between Ellis Richards et al. and The State of Trinidad and Tobago of the Caribbean Court of Justice in its Original Jurisdiction delivered by the President of the CCJ, Vincentian Mr. Justice Saunders is a devastating blow to policy holders across the Eastern Caribbean, a step backwards for CARICOM and a stain on the Caribbean Court of Justice itself. The CCJ, in a judgement delivered on October 22nd 2024, dismissed the $800 million claim brought by former policy holders of British American Insurance Company (BAICO) against the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.
In this judgement the CCJ has failed to deliver to citizens of CARICOM in the smaller islands of the Caribbean the type of fairness among member states that its Original Jurisdiction empowered it to protect. The CCJ, led by Vincentian Justice Adrian Saunders, has let down the long-suffering policy holders of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the wider Caribbean. The essence of the claim was that it was discriminatory for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, to have (among other things) sequestered assets of CL Financial, some of which were assets owned by BAICO, and used them to make distributions mainly to policy holders resident in Trinidad and Tobago (who held policies with other subsidiaries of CL). The Treaty of Chaguaramas contained provisions intended to both protect consumers within CARICOM (Article 184) conferring on them certain consumer rights, and also to protect against discrimination against any member state based on nationality (Article 7).
The CCJ’s ruling in effect means that while the Treaty confers certain rights on CARICOM nationals, it does not go further to present effective remedies for the breach of those rights.
Also, the Court’s extremely narrow interpretation of Article 7 means that nationals cannot look for protection in cross border trade. The ruling that the BAICO policy holders were not discriminated against based only on nationality, is difficult to understand at best. The Court stated that the circumstances of BAICO policy holders was different from those of the other CL Financial subsidiaries in Trinidad and Tobago, because those policy holders benefited from a Government bailout. The court held that this Government bailout was understandable as being necessary to save the local economy. The Court did not say anything to acknowledge the injustice of the fact that this was done at the expense of policy holders from the OECS.
The CCJ did not even acknowledge that the Defendant admitted that it would have given greater support to the policy holders of BAICO, had it not suffered an economic crisis due to depressed oil prices and Covid 19 pandemic, an admission of its responsibility.
After this disappointment from the CCJ, policy holders will focus their attention back to the Judicial Managers, and continue to inquire as to when the remaining funds being held by the Judicial Managers will be distributed out, even though it is not expected that this distribution will be substantial. The Judicial Managers successfully sued Mr Lawrence Duprey in the USA and the judgement was recognized in Trinidad and Tobago. This may have positive implications for policy holders.
Furthermore, questions need to be asked about the status of the case that the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines brought against RBTT for its possible role in failing to honour BAICO’s obligation to hold a security deposit in St. Vincent on behalf of BAICO’s policy holders. Questions must be asked as to why the Minister with responsibility for Insurance did not ensure that the statutory deposit was in fact being held on account. To date, the case is languishing in the courts and no fines have been imposed.
The Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, which has supervisory authority over BAICO within this jurisdiction, based on a statutory obligation, must be called on to offer some measure of compensation to the long-suffering citizens, many now elderly, who lost much of their savings. Also, the Government of SVG, together with CARICOM, must be asked to speak to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to come to some resolution on this matter. As citizens of CARICOM we demand no less.”