So, after the CCJ handed that judgment down, they went unto another case of great public interest. That;S the one where 54 Belizeans are suing the Government of Belize for 4 million dollars in life insurance policies they collectively lost when CLICO went belly-up.
They asserted that the Government should not have allowed CLICO to carry on the business of life insurance , because they were not in full compliance with the Insurance Act.
As we've reported, under this act, CLICO was required to establish statutory fund which was supposed to be equal to the liabilities to the all the Belizean customers - to protect them in the event of a bankruptcy.
But, even without this fund fully functional, CLICO was granted a license to keep operating in Belize, and from the perspective of 54 Belizeans, the Government should accept the liability and pay them what they lost when the insurance company crashed.
Well, the CCJ deliberated for 2 months and this afternoon, the court ruled that their appeal is dismissed.
Outside of court we spoke with the solicitor general about the win for government:
Nigel Hawke - Solicitor General
"The matter today concerned a question of whether they had been appeal form the court of appeal decision considering whether the supervisor insurance acted in bad faith and on a second new limb if she didn't they were arguing that the liability should have extended to the state. The court dismissed their appeal finding that the section 4.3 of the act which provided for immunity the supervisor of insurance. They did not find that she acted in bad faith. I think all her actions were reasonable given the flexibility of the act over all in terms of statutory duties and it also ruled that the immunity extended to the state even if they had wanted to argue that but they rejected that argument because it came very late in the day. They rejected that argument because section 4 also of the crown proceedings act providing an immunity to the state in any event."
Reporter
"How would you respond to those people who lost their insurance because of this? They get left out in the cold. The company has closed down and the money that they invested and hoped would be their nest egg for later on in life has been lost."
Nigel Hawke - Solicitor General
"When it's a difficult question to answer. We sympathize with them but I think the evidence will show that the supervisor of insurance did her utmost best to protect the statutory fund. As you see when you see a copy of the judgement, 1) I think the court mentioned is that really and truly when you look at all the circumstances especially because of the collapse of the company in 2009 or 2008, that contributed also to the loss that they suffered and it really couldn't be attributed to the supervisor of insurance."
Email
Print