Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Society of Lloyd’s v. Siemon-Netto

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
457 F.3d 94 (2006)


Facts

Siemon-Netto (Netto) (defendant) was a member of the Society of Lloyd’s (Lloyd’s) (plaintiff), a traditional English market system consisting of the Council of Lloyd’s (Council) and members. Members were insurance underwriters, and the Council regulated the members. Lloyd’s was a private corporation with special powers granted by the United Kingdom Parliament. To become a member, a person had to sign a general-undertaking agreement that authorized the Council to enter future agreements on behalf of the member. The Council adopted a reconstruction plan pursuant to Lloyd’s bylaws and also signed the plan on behalf of members. The plan required members to pay insurance premiums to Lloyd’s. Netto failed to pay the premiums, and Lloyd’s successfully sued for breach of contract in an English court. Lloyd’s filed to enforce the English judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act (the FMJRA). The district court struck all of Netto’s affirmative defenses and granted summary judgment for Lloyd’s. Netto appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Netto argued that the English judgment should not be recognized by a United States court, because the judgment was repugnant to the public policy of the District of Columbia. Netto argued this was the case because: Netto never signed the reconstruction plan, Lloyd’s bylaws violated English law, and Parliament illegally delegated government authority to Lloyd’s.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Garland, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 178,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.