Legal Focus: Falling back on the WTO – implications of ‘no deal’ for the UK insurance sector

A no-deal Brexit looms large again after the EU’s leading negotiator, Michel Barnier, warned there had been “no progress” on key issues at last month’s trade talks. Although negotiations are expected to intensify, if a free trade agreement (FTA) is not agreed in the next few months, access to the EU would change from passporting rights based on the EU single market directives to rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Exiting on WTO rules will have significant implications for UK insurers, which cannot write EU risks on a services basis, save in limited circumstances. The position is somewhat better for UK reinsurers, which do not face the same access constraints but could be subject to local restrictions. The position for UK re­insurers would also benefit from a positive equivalence decision under art 172 of Solvency II.

The WTO describes its principal function as a forum for members to negotiate on trade issues, with the EU and the UK both members in their own right. It operates a body of rules in the form of the WTO agreements, with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats) and the legal instruments that fall under it: the Annex on Financial Services, the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services and the specific commitments of individual members. These establish a framework for co-operation for financial services, including insurance, reinsurance, insurance mediation and auxiliary services such as risk assessment and claim settlement.

Gats

Gats envisages cross-border access for financial services through four so-called “modes of supply”: cross-border trade in services, consumption abroad, commercial presence and presence of natural persons. Notably, access through the first two modes is restricted to the direct supply or mediation of a limited range of insurance – such as marine, aviation and transport (MAT) risks – on a services basis.

This means, under Gats, UK insurers can only write these limited risk on a services basis, provided these risks are within the insurer’s host state’s Gats specific commitments and any requirements of its host regulator are met, which may well include a requirement for local authorisation. However, insurance groups that completed their contingency plans and established an EU-authorised subsidiary and a UK-authorised subsidiary or branch pre-Brexit should largely be unaffected if Gats applies from the end of the transition period.

In any case, the extent of access under Gats will also depend on the UK’s ability to obtain WTO participation in any agreements to which it is a party at present by virtue of its membership of the EU.

Under WTO rules, the UK will be subject to the Most Favoured Nation principle, which obliges members to accord “no less favourable treatment that it accords to like services and service suppliers of any other country”

Under WTO rules, the UK will be subject to the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle, which obliges members to accord “no less favourable treatment that it accords to like services and service suppliers of any other country” (Article II Gats). MFN rules are subject to a “prudential carve-out”, which permits members to take measures for “the protection of… policyholders or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed by a financial service supplier, or to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system” (Gats Annex, paragraph 2(a)).

The prudential carve-out will, generally speaking, allow the UK to maintain its regulatory auto­nomy, but, of course, allows other WTO members to implement their own prudential measures. At present individual EU27 members impose limitations on non-European Economic Area (EEA) firms in respect to MAT risks and reinsurance.

For example, in Austria, compulsory air insurance can only be provided by an EEA-authorised subsidiary or an Austrian branch of a non-EEA insurer, while Germany permits the provision of reinsurance by non-EEA reinsurers (and which are not from a jurisdiction deemed equivalent for Solvency II purposes) on a “correspondence” basis only – that is, no presence or activity in Germany itself. There are several other limitation examples, demonstrating that there is not a constant approach to MAT and reinsurance risks under Gats.

Given its high-level nature, Gats will do little to ensure a standardised approach on access across the EU27 and a fragmented regulatory and legal landscape may be the first discernible sign of a “no deal” Brexit for insurers. Firms looking to reply on Gats rules to trade are therefore advised to analyse the position in each jurisdiction ahead of the end of the transition period to ensure that service and access disruption is minimised where possible.

Amera Dooley is a knowledge lawyer at Clifford Chance

As sponsors of the legal pages we intend to cover a range of topics impacting the insurance market, but are looking to engage directly and seek feedback on our insights and listen to ideas for future articles. Please contact us through: GlobalInsurancePractice@cliffordchance.com