PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY - Willis

PROTECTION
AND INDEMNITY
MARkET REvIEw 2008/2009

PROTECTION
AND INDEMNITY
MARkET REvIEw 2008/09
Summary 3
Market Financial Commentary 7
Reinsurance and Pooling 17
– Changes in International Group Reinsurance 18
– Pool and Retention Development 21
– Expectations for the Reinsurance Renewal at 20 February 2009 26
General Increases 29
Average Expense Ratio (AER) Comparisons 33
Club Financial Pages 37
– Introduction to Club Pages 38
– American 40
– Britannia 42
– Gard 44
– Japan 46
– London 48
– North of England 50
– Shipowners 52
– Skuld 54
– Standard (Bermuda) 56
– Steamship 58
– UK Club 60
– West of England 62
– Liverpool & London 64
– Swedish 65
Supplementary Call History 67
– Historic Supplementary Call Accuracy 68
– Supplementary Call History Summary 70
– Comparison of Original and Actual Supplementary Calls 72
– Percentage Variation from Initial Estimated Total Call 75
Release Calls 79
P&I Fixed Premium Market 83
Contacts 92
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |

SUMMARY

LOOkINg
BACk
RENEwAL AT 20 FEBRUARY 2008
The background to the 2008 Protection and Indemnity (P&I)
renewal was ominous. The previous year had experienced the
worst Pool claims record ever and 2007/08 appeared to be
heading towards a similar level.
Retained claims performance largely mirrored the adverse
Pool development. Added to this the investment climate was
uncertain. In this gloomy environment, the highest general
increases for five years were announced.
The renewal discussions themselves were the most
confrontational of the decade. ‘Cash was king’ for the Clubs and
ship operators, who were faced with rising costs in all other areas,
fought hard to resist premium increases.
The combination of these issues led to delayed renewal offers and
generally a much later conclusion of negotiations than normal.
Overall our estimate of the actual result pushed through by the
market was an increase of between 13 and 14 percent on mutual P&I.
2007/08 FINANCIAL YEAR RESULTS
As anticipated, the increase in claims led to the 2007/08 financial
year registering the worst ever underwriting result for the
P&I market. It was notable that the substantial increases in
outstanding claims estimates over the last three years were finally
translated into a surge in claims actually being paid in 2007/08.
By contrast to the adverse claims picture, in most cases
investment income results were not as dire as some feared and
an overall investment return of roughly six percent mitigated the
underwriting deficit substantially. The overall result for the market
was therefore only very marginally below the break even position.
This relatively benign overall result masks the wide variances
between the best and worst performing individual Clubs.
Similarly the heavy reliance on investment income resonates all
too painfully with the problems following the world economic
crash in September and October 2008.
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
‘Cash was king’ for
the Clubs and ship
operators, who were
faced with rising
costs in all other
areas, fought hard
to resist premium
increases.
The main wild card
at the moment is
the impact that the
global economic
crisis has had on
Club reserves.

LOOkINg
FORwARD
The main wild card at the moment is the impact that the global
economic crisis has had on Club reserves and will have on future
investment income results.
The London Club was the first obvious casualty of the economic
situation. A woeful investment result in 2007/08 exacerbated by
the meltdown in the equity markets in the third quarter of 2008,
forced them into a refinancing of approximately USD 90 million
by means of unbudgeted calls.
The UK P&I Club followed shortly afterwards with a similar
requirement. If all the UK Club’s announced unbudgeted calls
are charged in due course they will equate to a recapitalisation
of roughly USD 180 million. The UK P&I Club’s decision was
not directly forced upon them, unlike the London Club. The
uncertainty of the world economy, combined with the volatility
of claims, provided the catalyst for a shift in their attitude to what
represented an adequate margin of error.
The inherent issues of the American Club led to their wholly
expected announcement of further unbudgeted calls.
The West of England announced additional unbudgeted calls
which if all debited would amount to USD 140 million. The West
of England’s announcement reduces the unbudgeted call made
in 2006 but adds greater additional calls on the 2007 and 2008
years. Again the collapse in the financial markets is the catalyst,
but for a Club still recovering from the last round of unbudgeted
calls the message is particularly unpalatable.
Most recently the Swedish Club have announced substantial
unbudgeted calls on the 2006 and 2007 years. In the
circumstances, the increase in the West of England’s and the
Swedish Club’s release calls may also be perceived as a cynical
commercial move.
No Club is immune from the uncertainty in the investment market.
It is therefore not possible to categorically state that no other Club
will be compelled down the route of unbudgeted calls. We expect
however that the stronger Clubs will be able to absorb the impact of
the recent fluctuations in investment. Thus, we do not anticipate an
imminent recurrence of unbudgeted calls across the entire market.
The market environment is changing almost daily and we will
continue to keep our clients updated of all major developments.
As outlined in recent Willis publications,
volatility is the overriding characteristic
of the pattern of large P&I claims in the
current environment.
Almost to underline this, so far in 2008/09
Pool claims appear to be strangely benign.
At the time of writing only two Pool claims
in excess of USD 10 million had been
reported in the current policy year.
This curious reduction in very large
claims is unlikely to persist as most of
the drivers of major claims continue to be
present. The anomaly serves to emphasise
the volatility and difficulty of prediction in
the current market.
Despite retained claims continuing the
upward pattern of the last two years, the
increases in premium at the 2008 renewal
will have gone some considerable way
towards eroding the underwriting deficits
across the market. Underwriting deficits
will persist and as intimated earlier, the key
question will be to what extent investment
income assists, or more likely, further
deteriorates Clubs’ financial positions.
There is a marked variance between
the financial position of Clubs and their
ability to withstand the current market
uncertainties. The discrepancy between
the strongest and weakest is likely to
become even greater in the present
environment.
General increases for the renewal at 20
February 2009 are predominantly in
the 10 to 20 percent range. The average
announced increase is marginally higher
than 2008 and the rationale behind the
increases is evident. Regardless of this the
forthcoming renewal is set to be every bit
as confrontational as last year.
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |

MARkET
FINANCIAL
COMMENTARY

OvERvIEw
From a pure underwriting perspective 2007/08 represents a new
record deficit for the market. The trend in paid claims is following
the surge in outstanding claims estimates noted in previous years.
Premium levels were again overwhelmed by claims.
This underwriting development was predicted in our review last
year, at which point we suggested that it would take an investment
return in excess of 6 percent to enable the market to break even.
Despite the less than certain climate in 2007, the investment return
produced by the market was better than feared, at marginally
above the 6 percent level mentioned. Investment income did not
completely offset the underwriting loss, but came within USD 8.3
million of the level required (putting the overall deficit in context it
represents only 0.3 percent of the market premium).
Looking forward, the increases in premium at the 2008 renewal
should erode the underwriting deficit. However, unless claims
trends miraculously change in 2008/09, the year will end with a
reduced but still material deficit. At the same time investment
income has never been more uncertain. Investment losses are
widely mooted and a sizeable overall deficit appears inevitable for
the market in 2008/09.
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2007/08
FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULTS
PAID CLAIMS CATChINg UP
wITh INCURRED CLAIMS
Total premiums paid increased by 6.8
percent between 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Reinsurance costs jumped by 12.4 percent
over the same period. The increase in
reinsurance costs signalled a move by
Clubs to try to protect themselves from
the prevailing claims volatility. Operating
expenses increased by a more inflationary
5 percent. The net result of this was
that Operating Income (Premium, less
Reinsurance, less Operating Expenses)
increased by 5.9 percent.
Following the surge in outstanding claims
estimates over the last four years it was
only a matter of time before these led to
an increase in the level of paid claims. This
anticipated development was dramatically
realised in 2007/08, with Gross Paid
Claims increasing by 34.5 percent.
Net Paid Claims were ameliorated by
reinsurance recoveries but still escalated
by 25 percent. Following the same pattern
as the outstanding claims estimates, this
represents the single biggest percentage
increase in paid claims between financial
years in the market’s history.
The developments of Gross Premiums
compared to Gross Paid Claims, and,
Operating Income compared to Net Paid
Claims, are shown in the graphs on the
opposite page.
The 200 renewal premium increases should erode
the underwriting deficit, but barring a minor miracle in
claims trends 200 /09 will end with a reduced, but still
material deficit.

USD Millions
USD Millions
USD Millions
USD Millions
The surge in outstanding claims in recent years was,
as expected, dramatically mirrored in Paid Claims in
2007/0 . Gross and Net Paid Claims increased by
3 . and 2 percent respectively. These represent the
largest percentage increases in paid claims between
financial years in the market’s history.
Paid Premiums aNd Gross Paid Claims - ComPared To oWNed eNTered ToNNaGe
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
Total Owned Tonnage (GT)
Total Owned Tonnage (GT)
Calls and Premiums
Calls and Premiums
Gross Paid Claims
Gross Paid Claims
1996/97
1996/97
1997/98
1997/98
1998/99
1998/99
1999/00
1999/00
2000/01
2000/01
2001/02
2001/02
2002/03
2002/03
2003/04
2003/04
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2007/08
0
Total Owned Tonnage (GT)
Total Owned Tonnage (GT)
Operating Income
Operating Income
Net Paid Claims
Net Paid Claims
1996/97
1996/97
1997/98
1997/98
1998/99
1998/99
1999/00
1999/00
2000/01
2000/01
2001/02
2001/02
2002/03
2002/03
2003/04
2003/04
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2007/08
750
750
700
700
650
650
600
600
550
550
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
750
750
700
700
650
650
600
600
550
550
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Entered Tonnage (million GT)
Entered Tonnage (million GT)
Entered Tonnage (million GT)
Entered Tonnage (million GT)
USD
USD
Millions
Millions
USD
USD
Millions
Millions
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
oPeraTiNG iNCome aNd NeT Paid Claims - ComPared To oWNed eNTered ToNNaGe
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
2005/06 2005/06
2005/06 2005/06
2006/07 2006/07
2006/07 2006/07
2007/08 2007/08
2007/08 2007/08
750
750
700
700
650
650
600
600
550
550
500
500
450
450
750
750
700
700
650
650
600
600
550
550
500
500
450
450
Entered Entered Tonnage (million GT) GT)
Entered Entered Tonnage (million GT) GT)
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9

USD Millions
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
USD Millions
1996/97
NEw RECORD DEFICIT IN UNDERwRITINg RESULT
As a result of the claims pattern highlighted earlier, the ‘paid’
technical surplus in 2006/07 was reversed into a material deficit
in 2007/08. Combined with a further increase in outstanding
claims estimates (though mercifully increased by less than in
2006/07) the overall ‘incurred technical result’ in 2007/08 was
4 percent worse than in 2006/07.
The ‘Net Underwriting Result’ graph below highlights this trend.
Despite the fact that outstanding claims are increasing at a reduced
rate, the paid underwriting deficit is large enough for the market to
report the worst incurred underwriting result in its history.
Due to the time lag of paying long tail claims, the trend expected
over the next two or three years would be that paid claims would
continue to increase, in broadly the same pattern as the increase
in outstanding claims since 2004.
NeT uNderWriTiNG resulT
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
-500
Incurred Technical
Paid Technical
Surplus
Surplus
(Deficit)
(Deficit)
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit)
Change in Estimated Outstanding Claims
-600 Change in Estimated Outstanding Claims
1997/98
1998/99 1996/97
1999/00 1997/98
2000/01
1998/99
2001/02
1999/00
INvESTMENT INCOME COMES
TO ThE RESCUE AgAIN - ALMOST
The P&I market has not reported an underwriting surplus for
over 15 years. Over these 15 years investment income has been
sufficient to offset the underwriting deficits in all but five years.
In our review last year we anticipated the marginal deterioration
in the underwriting result. We also highlighted that a similar
deficit to 2006/07 would be offset by an investment income result
exceeding 6 percent.
0 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2000/01
2002/03
2001/02
2003/04
2002/03
2004/05
2003/04
2005/06
2004/05
2006/07
2005/06
2007/08
2006/07
2007/08
USD Millions
200
100
0
USD Millions
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
05/06
06/07
05/06
07/08
06/07
07/08
There was much uncertainty in 2007
about the possible levels of investment
income. Without question no one
expected the record levels seen in
2006/07 but there were also a number
of dire predictions about where the year
could eventually lead. As it turned out,
for most Clubs, investment income was
significantly better than feared and the
overall result across the market was
marginally over 6 percent.

USD Millions
2001/02
800
600
400
200
-200
-400
2002/03
0
2003/04
1996/97
The impact of investment income on the overall result is clearly
shown in the ‘Overall Result’ graph below. The substantial
incurred technical deficit was converted to almost a break
even position due to the USD 347 million contribution from
investment income. As mentioned in the introduction to this
section, investment income did not completely offset the
underwriting loss, but came within USD 8.3 million of the level
required. Putting the overall deficit in context it represents only a
0.3 percent deficit when compared to market premium.
investment income did not completely offset the
underwriting loss, but it transformed what would
have been a 13 percent overall deficit to just a
0.3 percent deficit.
overall resulT – iNCludiNG iNvesTmeNT iNCome
USD Millions
Investment 800 Income
Investment Income
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit)
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit)
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
600 Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
400
200
0
-200
-400
1997/98
1998/99
1996/97
1999/00
1997/98
2000/01
1998/99
2001/02
1999/00
2002/03
2000/01
2003/04
2001/02
2004/05
2002/03
2005/06
2003/04
2006/07
2004/05
2007/08
2005/06
develoPmeNT of asseTs aNd free reserves
USD Millions
2004/05
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2005/06
2006/07 1996/97
Net Assets (Market)
Net Outstanding Claims
Free Reserves
2007/08 1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2007/08
USD Millions
USD Millions
MARkET RESERvES PLATEAU
Assets and Outstanding Claims estimates
increased by a similar level (3.2 percent
and 3.9 percent respectively). Free
Reserves, mirroring the marginal overall
deficit for 2007/08, dipped very slightly.
The trend in development of Total Assets
and Free Reserves within the IG market
over the last twelve years is highlighted in
the graph at the bottom of this page.
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
USD Millions
05/06
05/06
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
06/07
06/07
05/06 07/08
07/08
06/07
07/08
USD Millions
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
05/06
06/07

UNDERwRITINg vARIANCES
BETwEEN CLUBS
This relatively benign overall result masks the wide variances
between the best and worst performing individual Clubs.
Similarly the heavy reliance on investment income has become all
too clear following the world economic crash in September and
October 2008.
The following graph (Percentage Underwriting Surplus/Deficit)
highlights the financial year percentage technical surplus or
deficit of the 13 International Group Clubs. In effect this shows
the percentage by which each Club’s premium would have to be
increased for the 2007/08 financial year to break even without any
contribution from investment income.
Only three Clubs reported a technical surplus in 2007/08. Of these
the Japan Club’s result was largely because of unbudgeted calls
registered in the financial year.
The graph emphasises the extent of reliance on investment
income in the current P&I market, but also highlights which
Clubs have further to go than others to redress the balance.
PerCeNTaGe uNderWriTiNG surPlus / defiCiT
(2007/0 year)
iNCurred TeChNiCal surPlus (or defiCiT) / Premium
15% Underwriting Surplus/Deficit
10%
Market Average
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
American
Britannia
Gard
Japan
2 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
London
North of
England
Shipowners
Skuld
Standard
Steamship
Swedish
UK Club
West of
England
The heavy reliance
on investment
income resonates all
too painfully with the
problems following
the world economic
crash in september
and october 200 .

INvESTMENT STRATEgY vARIANCES
BETwEEN CLUBS
The reliance on investment income combined with a very uncertain economic climate has
naturally led to considerable focus on how each Club chooses to invest their reserves.
We have included below a graph (Investment Allocation) which compares each of the
Clubs’ investment allocation, rather crudely, under the headings: Cash, Bonds (including
any fixed income vehicles), Equities and Others (e.g. property, commodities etc).
The allocations are as at the date of the Clubs’ last Report and Accounts. For most Clubs
this would be the 20 February 2008, but the Swedish and American Clubs reported on
31 December 2007.
Reviewing this investment allocation more recently (Autumn 2008) the pattern remains
relatively similar, with only a small percentage difference between any of the types of
investment (usually a 2 to 5 percent reduction in equity holdings). Notable exceptions
to this are the London Club and North of England. The North of England as at October
2008 held no equities, 62 percent in cash, 25 percent in bonds and 3 percent in other
investments. The London Club as at 20 September had reduced their equity holdings
from 39 to 22 percent, with corresponding increases in Cash and Bond investments from
16 to 26 percent and 40 to 47 percent respectively.
Focussing on the percentage of equities held by each Club, it is perhaps not surprising
that the London Club, with the very highest percentage of equities in the market, have
been forced to make unbudgeted calls. The UK P&I Club by contrast appeared to have
made the right decision in late 2007/08 to withdraw almost completely from equities,
further emphasising that their rationale for unbudgeted calls is less straight forward than
simply the crash of the financial markets.
iNvesTmeNT alloCaTioN
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
American
Britannia
Gard
Japan
London
North of
England
Shipowners
Skuld
Standard
Steamship
Swedish
UK Club
West of
England
Cash
Bonds
Equity
Others
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 3

FUTURE TRENDS
CLAIMS LEvELS – whERE NExT?
In previous reviews we have discussed the key potential drivers
pushing up P&I claims levels. The principle factors highlighted in
last year’s review are reiterated below:
— Increased use of ships and pressure on turnaround as a result of
the positive freight market, resulting in a greater number and
size of claims.
— Higher commodity prices pushing up repair costs and size of
cargo claims.
— With shipyards working at full capacity and very little
scrapping, there are simply more ships operating.
— Lack of qualified and experienced crew, potentially leading to
more human errors.
— Technological advancements make what was previously
impossible, now possible (e.g. wreck removal/cargo removal
from deeper water etc).
— The general background of increasing limitation on ship
owners and an increasingly onerous operating environment
compound the above factors.
Over the next year, the factors affecting claims levels are likely to
evolve. In the existing economic climate it would be anticipated
that trade would be reduced and freight volumes would
correspondingly diminish. It would also be reasonable to predict
that commodity prices would decrease. In a period of reduced
demand for shipping it would similarly be predictable that older
ships would finally be scrapped as they no longer prove to be
economically viable to operate. Consequently we would expect that
in a recessionary economic environment the impact of the factors
highlighted in the first three bullet points above would be lessened.
The crewing shortage will not be addressed over night, but if fewer
ships are operating the pressure should be reduced. The current
escalated crew costs will however be harder to redress imminently.
Similarly the dramatically increased limitation environment that
has developed in recent years looks likely to continue in the same
onerous direction. The political climate seems stacked against ship
operators for the foreseeable future.
New claims drivers will also be introduced. In a less buoyant
freight environment, it will be less likely that relatively minor
disputes will be resolved commercially. Similarly in a more
difficult commercial world the potential for moral hazard is
increased when dealing with less reputable trading partners.
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
On balance, it would be expected that
P&I claims, with a natural time lag, would
decrease as the world economic recession
develops. However, due to the increased
levels of limitation the cost of major
causalities would be unlikely to diminish,
consequently a similarly volatile profile of
large claims is likely to continue.
In the short term, due to the nature of
long tail claims it is expected that paid
claims will continue to increase following
broadly the same pattern as the increase in
outstanding claims since 2004. Similarly
for the current policy year there appears to
be no imminent abatement in the increase
of attritional claims costs.
One aspect that appears almost
inevitable, even if P&I claims reduce,
is that commercial disputes covered by
Freight Demurrage and Defence (FDD)
will increase.
IMPACT OF ThE
FINANCIAL CLIMATE
ON INvESTMENT INCOME?
The key wild card at the moment is the
impact that the global economic crisis has
had on Club reserves and will have on future
investment income results.
In an attempt to indicate how
fundamental and unpredictable this is,
we have projected forward two theoretical
outcomes for the market by the end of the
2008/09 financial year. These are shown
in the graphs on the opposite page. The
first graph estimates the overall result
for the market assuming no investment
income at all. The second graph looks at
a scenario which projects the outcome if
all Clubs lost approximately 30 percent
of the value of their equity holdings, but
achieved a 3 percent return on all other
investments in 2008/09. Clearly neither
outcome is positive, but the second
scenario would wipe out just under 20
percent of the market’s free reserves
in a single year. The probable result is
somewhere between the two.

2000/01
ar (Deficit)
rplus (Deficit)
2001/02
2002/03
USD Millions
2003/04
USD Millions
RENEwAL AT FEBRUARY 20, 2009
Ahead of the renewal at February 20, 2009, the P&I market is facing a world full
of uncertainties.
Despite a respite in Pool claims, retained claims continue to increase, at least in the
short term. There is continuing cost pressure on the IG reinsurance programme.
The investment environment is the most volatile in living memory.
Underwriting deficits combined with unreliable investment income present the
unwelcome but inevitable prospect of significant premium increases at 20 February 2009.
The change in the shipping market presents its own uncertainties. All of which looks
likely to lead to a renewal every bit as confrontational as 2008.
overall resulT – ProjeCTed forWard: Nil iNvesTmeNT iNCome
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
2004/05
1996/97 2005/06
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit)
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
Investment Income
1997/98 2006/07
1998/99 2007/08
1999/00 2008/09
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
overall resulT –
ProjeCTed forWard: equiTies -30 PerCeNT, remaiNiNG iNvesTmeNTs +3 PerCeNT
900
900
800
800
700
700
600
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-200
-300
-300
-400
-400
-500
-500
1996/97
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit)
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit)
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit)
Investment Income
Investment Income
1997/98 1997/98
1998/99
1998/99
1999/00
1999/00
2000/01
2000/01
2001/02
2001/02
2002/03
2002/03
2003/04
2003/04
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06 2006/07
2006/07 2007/08
2007/08 2008/09
2008/09
2008/09
USD Millions
USD Millions
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
USD Millions
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
06/07
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
06/07
07/08
08/09
07/08
06/07
08/09
07/08
08/09
USD Millions
800
600
400
200
-200
-400
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
0
06/07
07/08
08/09

REINSURANCE
AND POOLINg

ChANgES IN
INTERNATIONAL
gROUP REINSURANCE
RENEwAL AT 20 FEBRUARY 2008
As expected there were no material changes to the Retentions or Structure of the
International Group (IG) reinsurance programme at 20 February 2008. The unchanged
structure chart is included below.
The key issue for the reinsurance renewal at 20 February 2008 was cost.
Despite a relatively flat reinsurance market, the reinsurance rates were increased by an
average of 9.77 percent and all types of ship were impacted. The largest percentage increase
was on dry cargo ships (12.65 percent), and dirty tankers faced the smallest percentage
increase (7.4 percent). While clean tankers and passenger ships increased by 9.76 percent and
9.27 percent respectively.
STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL gROUP REINSURANCE PROgRAMME 2008/09*
Catastrophe/overspill call liability
of shipowners (approximately)
Collective Overspill Cover
(One Reinstatement)
Third Excess Layer
(Unlimited Reinstatements)
Second Excess Layer
(Unlimited Reinstatements)
75% First Excess Layer
(Unlimited Reinstatements)
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
25% Co-Insurance (Hydra)
USD 5.4B
USD 3.05B
USD 2.05B
USD 1.05B
USD 550M
Upper Pool (Hydra) USD 50M
Lower Pool USD 30M
Club Retentions USD 7M
*Not to scale
Aggregate of Passenger
and Crew Risk USD 3B
Sub-limit in Respect of
Passenger Risks USD 2B Limit
Oil pollution USD 1B Limit

When translated to direct premiums the reinsurance increases were relatively modest (average
around 1 to 2 percent). However, as they came at the end of a challenging season, the increases
were perceived as an unexpected ‘sting in the tail’ of an already difficult renewal.
As implied earlier, the driving factor behind the reinsurance increases was not the
reinsurance market itself but the requirement to address the losses of the International
Group Captive (Hydra).
Hydra reinsures each Club’s share of the Upper Pool layer (USD 20 million excess of USD 30
million), together with each Club’s 25 percent share of the first layer of the IG’s reinsurance
programme (USD 500 million excess of USD 50 million). Unlike the costs of the IG Pool itself,
Hydra is funded by a proportion of the IG reinsurance premium allocated to each vessel.
The surge in large claims in 2006 would have effectively wiped out Hydra’s reserves: the
projected total claims cost on Hydra for the 2005 and 2006 years combined was USD 162
million, whereas net premiums into Hydra totalled USD 119 million.
In order to avoid potential insolvency, an unplanned refinancing was effected in April
2007 through a USD 50 million capital call shared across all the IG Clubs. This refinanced
the captive, but did not prepare it for the continuing high claims levels as experienced in
2006. With similar claims levels developing in 2007, the decision was taken to increase
annual premiums into Hydra from 20 February 2008. This had the obvious knock on
effect of increasing the IG reinsurance rates per vessel.
The impact on the reinsurance cost by type of vessel is outlined in the table below and in
the graphs on the following page.
One of the very few ‘bright spots’ in the reinsurance results was the reduction in US Voyage
Additional Premiums (-10 percent).
INTERNATIONAL gROUP ExCESS OF LOSS REINSURANCE RATES
Vessel Type 2007/08 2008/09 Increase/Reduction Percentage Increase
(USD, per GT, per annum) (USD, per GT, per annum) (USD, per GT, per annum)
Dirty Tanker 0.6797 0.7300 0.0503 7.40%
Clean Tanker 0.3187 0.3498 0.0311 9.76%
Dry/Other 0.2837 0.3196 0.0359 12.65%
Passenger 1.3714 1.4985 0.1271 9.27%
Tanker Chartered 0.1635 0.1696 0.0061 3.73%
Other Chartered 0.0805 0.0829 0.0024 2.98%
US vOYAgE SURChARgES
Additional Fixed Premium, USD per GT, per voyage
2007/08 2008/09 Reduction Percentage Change
(USD, per GT, per voyage)
Vessels with SBT 0.096 0.086 -0.0100 -10.4%
Vessels without SBT 0.114 0.103 -0.0110 -9.6%
SBT: Segregated Ballast Tanks
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9

1996
1996
1997
1998
1999
USD per GT
2000
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
2001
2002
1995
2003
1996
2004
1997
2005
1998
2006
1999
2007
2000
2008
2001
Dirty Tanker Clean Tanker Passenger Other
Dirty Tanker Clean Tanker Passenger Other
1997
1998
1999
COST ChANgES BY vESSEL TYPE
20 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2002
2003
US vOYAgE ADDITIONAL PREMIUMS
USD per GT
2000
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
2001
Vessels with SBT
2002
1995
2003
1996
2004
1997
2005
1998
2006
1999
2007
2000
2008
2001
2002
2003
Vessels without SBT
Vessels with SBT
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
Vessels without SBT
USD per GT
USD per GT
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
USD per GT
2008
USD per GT
2008
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
2005
2005
2006
2006

POOL AND RETENTION
DEvELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
The development of very large claims and their impact on P&I rating has continued to be
a key area of discussion during 2008/09.
2006/07 and 2007/08 are by some margin, the worst two years for Pool claims in the history
of the market. Further deterioration from their current level is also expected. As outlined in
our P&I Review last year, volatility is the overriding characteristic of the pattern of large P&I
claims. Almost to underline this, so far in 2008/09 Pool claims appear to be strangely benign.
At the time of writing only four Pool claims had been reported in the current policy year and
only two of these were claims in excess of USD 10 million. This reduction in the incidence of
very large claims is unlikely to continue, but it ironically serves to emphasise the volatility and
difficulty of predicting claims in the current environment.
MASSIvELY INCREASED RETENTION BY ThE P&I MARkET
There have been progressive increases in both individual Clubs’ retentions and the limits
collectively insured by the Pool.
The two graphs on the following page show the developments of individual Club
Retention and of the Pool layers from 1989 to 2008. We have also included our prediction
of how the 2009 year will look after the renewal at 20 February 2009.
The trend for both has been periods of stability followed by clear steps up in exposure.
For retentions, the key increases were in the early 1990’s and again from 2005 to 2007. The
timing for the increases in Pooling were similar (1992 to 1994 and 2004) but the most material
expansion of exposure was the introduction of the Upper Pool and coinsurance layer in 2004.
There has been a massive increase in risk retained within the Pool over the last twenty years:
— In 1989 the maximum Pool exposure was USD 10.8 million each claim, in excess of a
USD 1.2 million individual Club retention.
— By 2008 this had increased to USD 43 million each claim, in excess of a USD 7 million
individual Club retention.
— In addition to this, a 25 percent share of all claims between USD 50 and USD 550 million
was introduced in 2004. This share of the USD 500 million excess layer represents a further
potential exposure of USD 125 million on major claims.
— The current combined catastrophe exposure under the Pool and Hydra therefore is
USD 168 million each claim.
This USD 157 million increase in the maximum Pool exposure per claim inevitably
increases the potential for erratic results.
Both the Upper Layer of the Pool and the 25 percent coinsurance of the layer between USD 50
million and USD 550 million are retained by the International Group through the mechanism
of a cell captive, Hydra (discussed earlier in this section).
In this review, references to ‘Pooling’ will include all areas where the IG collectively
shares the risk, either directly through the Lower Pool, or via Hydra in the Upper Pool and
the 25 percent coinsurance layer.
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 2

USD Millions
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
USD Millions
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
RETENTION AND POOLINg DEvELOPMENT
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1989
2001
1990
2002
1991
2003
1992
2004
1993
2005
1994
2006
1995
2007
1996
2008
1997
2009
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Club Retention
RETENTION DEvELOPMENT
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Pool
22 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Upper Pool (Hydra)
Club Retention
Pool
PROJECTED
2007
2008
2009
2007
2008
2009
Upper Pool (Hydra)
USD Millions
USD Millions
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
0
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
0
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
PROJECTED
2009
2009
USD Millions
USD Millions
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
0
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
0
2006
2006

1999
2000
including Hydra
Insurance)
2001
POOL RESULTS
Like all liability results, the Pool results progress over time as cases are acknowledged,
estimated for, developed and are finally paid and closed.
It usually takes two to three years following the inception of a policy year for the results to
mature to the point that final projections can be made with reasonable accuracy.
As a ‘snap shot’ of the picture at 20 August 2008, we have included below a graph showing
the number and cost of Pool claims for the period from 1997 to 2007. The graph shows both
the current value of the claims reported and also the estimated final outcome for each year.
To show the historic trend in Pool claims more clearly we have also included a further
graph, overleaf, titled “Pool Claims – ‘As If’ Current Structure”.
As outlined earlier, the structure of the Pool has changed significantly over the last twenty
years. To analyse the trend more meaningfully we have calculated how the historic Pool
results would have looked had the current (2008-year) structure applied in each of the
years since 1988.
The graph all too clearly shows the trend. The pattern up until 2005 was of a volatility
of large claims, but with a relatively low mean (from 1988 to 2005 the average total cost
of the Pool was less than USD 145 million per year). This was followed in 2006 with a
dramatic jump in the overall cost of large claims. The expected average cost of Pool claims
in 2006 and 2007 is likely to be around USD 500 million each year.
POOL CLAIMS - ExPECTED 40 FINAL OUTCOME
USD Millions
600
500
400
300
200
100
2002
0
2003
1997
2004
1998
2005
1999
Expected Final Outcome
2006
2000
Totals (including Hydra
and Co-Insurance)
2007
2001
Number
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Number of Claims
2002
2003
2004
2005
Expected Final Outcome
2006
2007
Number
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Number of Claims
USD Millions
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
40
35
30
25
USD Millions
Number of Claims
20
15
10
0
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 23
5
2005
2006

POOL CLAIMS – ‘AS IF’ CURRENT STRUCTURE
USD Millions
600
500
400
300
200
100
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
0
Pools + Hydra / Co-ins ‘As-If’ Current
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
POOL RESULTS - ANALYSIS
In our Review last year we analysed the 2006 year Pool results. The broad conclusions
reached are summarised as follows:
— The average cost of each Pool claim in 2006 was almost 50 percent more than the
average cost of Pool claims over the previous four years.
— The profile of ships involved by type, age, nationality etc was unremarkable.
The distribution broadly mirrored the world fleet, though arguably weighted slightly
more towards container ships and somewhat under represented by tanker tonnage.
— Similarly there was no obvious indication of sub-standard shipping involved.
If anything, the notable characteristic was the number of casualties involving top
quality operators.
— The underlying theme of the results suggested that there was an increased incidence
of claims arising from navigational errors, resulting in groundings, contact damage
and collisions.
2 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Pools + Hydra / Co-ins ‘As-If’ Current
USD Millions
600
500
400
300
200
assuming this high average individual claim
level is sustained, it will be very likely that
the overall level of Pool claims experienced
in 2006 and 2007 will be repeated.
100
0
2005
2006
2007
USD Millions
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005

In 2006 the four largest claims, ‘GIANT STEP’, ‘MSC NAPOLI’,
‘OCEAN VICTORY’ and ‘ROKIA DELMAS’ all involved ships that
ended up aground. Overall, groundings accounted for 10 of the 31
claims and over 60 percent of the total cost of the year.
The broad conclusions reached regarding the 2006 Pool claims
remain valid for the 2007 results.
This theme of navigational errors continued in 2007. The two
largest claims were ‘HEBEI SPIRIT’ (major oil spill in South
Korea) and ‘COSCO BUSAN’ (which struck the San Francisco Bay
Bridge). The ‘HEBEI SPIRIT’ claim arose from a collision and the
‘COSCO BUSAN’ claim arose from contact.
POOL RESULTS - PROSPECTS FOR ThE FUTURE
The factors driving the increase in claims were outlined in the
Financial Commentary of this review. It is widely expected that
the economic slowdown will result in a decrease in world trade.
Consequently, some of the reasons given for the increases in
numbers and/or cost of claims, such as the commercial pressure
on ships, lack of scrapping and increased commodity prices, are
likely to diminish but not disappear.
Nor will the crewing issue be solved overnight. Similarly the
increases in limitation imposed on the shipping community
over the last eight years are more likely to worsen than abate.
The conundrum therefore is why the current (2008/09) year
shows a surprising lack of activity in terms of Pool claims.
Arguably, the most significant differentiator between the 2006 and
2007 claims profile and those of the previous years was the average
cost per claim. Assuming this high average individual claim level is
sustained, it will be very likely that the overall level of Pool claims
experienced in 2006 and 2007 will be repeated.
As highlighted above, due to the increased stretch insured by
the IG under the Pooling arrangements over the last five years,
a dominant factor that we expect to see is volatility. With the
expansion of retained risk with the Upper Pool, and coinsurance,
the IG has increased their exposure to large claims. Theoretically
this may make sense in the long term, as it controls claims at ‘cost
price’, but in the short term it means there is the potential of
substantially greater instability in claims costs.
Therefore, despite the early indications for the current year, we
still expect the trend to continue to be one of volatility, set against
a higher average.
With the expansion
of retained risk with
the upper Pool, and
coinsurance, the iG has
increased their exposure
to large claims.
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 2

ExPECTATIONS FOR ThE
REINSURANCE RENEwAL
AT 20 FEBRUARY 2009
INDIvIDUAL CLUB RETENTIONS TO INCREASE
As a general principle, there continues to be a stated aim of some of the larger and/
or better funded Clubs to further increase individual Club retentions. Despite the
background level and unpredictability of major claims, it looks likely that there will be a
consensus for another increase in retention at 20 February 2009.
We expect the individual Club retentions to increase from USD 7 million to USD 8 million
at 20 February 2009. This will probably be the only major change to the structure of the
IG reinsurance programme at the forthcoming renewal.
The IG continues to review the way they handle war risks. There is the possibility that
terrorism risks will cease to be excluded, and that the war programme will in a revised
form be rolled in to the main IG Excess of Loss programme. As ever, agreement needs
to be achieved across a diverse range of Club Boards to achieve this, consequently,
implementation of any changes is far from certain.
UPwARD PRESSURE ON ThE Ig REINSURANCE PROgRAMME COST
There has not been a single claim anywhere near the Excess of Loss programme so far in
2008. Unfortunately, there has been significant deterioration in the estimates for two or
three major claims in both 2006 and 2007.
The reinsurance market is also in a state of flux. The combination of the uncertain financial
market, major losses in the marine liability sector, and concern about the volatility of P&I
claims, all point towards a previously stable reinsurance market becoming firmer.
Therefore, pressure to increase the premium rating for the IG reinsurance programme
seems inevitable. The deterioration in the back years’ has only affected the lower layers
of the programme. Thus, the cost of these lower layers is likely to increase. Overall cost
increases should be lessened by results on the claims free upper layers of the programme.
Similarly, increases in world tonnage should also dilute overall cost increases when these
lump sum premiums are translated to a cost per GT in owners’ P&I rates.
In the current uncertain market, it would be prudent for operators to budget for an
inflationary increase on the IG reinsurance cost.
26 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
The combination of the uncertain financial market,
major losses in the marine liability sector, and concern
about the volatility of P&i claims, all point towards a
previously stable reinsurance market becoming firmer.

27 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09 Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 27

gENERAL
INCREASES

2008/09 OvERvIEw
General increases will be announced predominantly in the 10 to 20 percent range for the
renewal at 20 February 2009.
We have included below a graph showing the announcements of the Clubs for the 2009
policy year. The historic market results are shown on the page opposite.
The prime driver for most Clubs continues to be to try to address their technical
(underwriting) deficits. With ongoing uncertainty in the financial markets this push
towards reducing reliance on investment income, which usually balances the books,
is all the more critical.
The level of General increases are determined by not only each Club’s existing technical
deficits (or surpluses), but also their expectations of how claims costs will develop, and the
margin of error they build in to protect themselves against volatility in the industry.
In addition to the premium increases, eight of the Clubs have also announced some form
of general increase in deductible levels.
The average of the announced increases is likely to be marginally higher than 2008 and
the Clubs’ rationale behind the increases is evident. Regardless of this, the forthcoming
renewal looks likely to be just as challenging as last year.
gENERAL INCREASES – 20 FEBRUARY 2009
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
American
Britannia
30 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Gard
Japan
London
North of England
Shipowners
Skuld
Standard (Bermuda)
Steamship
16.5% Market Average
Swedish
United Kingdom
West of England

Percentage
YEAR ON YEAR
INCREASE COMPARISONS
AvERAgE MARkET gENERAL INCREASES
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1992 - 2009 MARkET gENERAL INCREASES
2003
2004
% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
American 32 12.5 8.5 18 7.5 10 0 5 5 10 26 25 17.5 10 10 10 20 29
Britannia 25 10 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 28.8 15 8.5 7.5 -2.5 5 23.8 12.5
Gard 30 10 0 0 5 7.5 0 -3.85 5 10 25 15 7.5 5 7.5 5 10 15
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 20 21.2
London 50 10 7.5 5 5 5 0 5 5 10 27.5 25 15 12.5 12.5 7.5 17.5 15
North of England 40 15 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 5 5 5 10 25 25 17.5 12.5 7.5 7.5 17.5 17.5
Shipowners 20 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 0 0 0 5 * 10
Skuld 30-75 15 10 2.5 5 5 0 5 0 10 30 25 15 7.5 5 2.5 7.5 15
Standard
(Bermuda)
25 20 7.5 4.5 7.5 0 0 0 0 7.5 25 25 20 12.5 5 5 15 15
Steamship 22.5 15 4.5 5 7.5 5 0 0 5 10 25 25 20 12.5 5 9 15 17.5
Swedish 0+R/I 15 0+R/I 0+R/I 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 25 25 15 10 10 7.5 15 15
United Kingdom 50 15 0 7.5 5 5 5 5 0 7.5 20 25 17.5 12.5 12.5 7.5 17.5 12.5
West of England 50 20 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5 5 5 10 25 25 15 12.5 12.5 5 15 19.2
Average 36.39 14.84 7.03 5 4.84 4.38 1.43 2.01 2.31 7.88 23.25 21.54 12.96 8.85 6.54 6.65 16.15 16.5
* The Shipowners Club did not announce a general increase in 2008, however they selectively applied increases between 15 and 20 percent
The Gard did not announce figurative general increases in 2007, 2008 and 2009, but the approximate overall increases they sought and are seeking are noted.
The figures noted for Britannia in 2008, and West of England, American and Japan Clubs in 2009, represent the cumulative effect of the announced
increase in the advance call plus the increase in deferred call estimate.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 3

AvERAgE
ExPENSE
RATIOS

Average Expense Ratios (AERs) were introduced in 1999
following pressure from the European Commission to improve
transparency of costs between the Clubs.
The intention was to enable direct comparisons of operating
cost efficiency between all the International Group Clubs.
Consequently all Clubs are required to follow the same format
when calculating their AER figure.
The ratio is a five-year average of:
3 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Operating costs x 100
(Premium income + Investment income)
AERs are a reasonable idea in principle, and provide a broad
indication of relative cost efficiency, however direct comparisons
between Clubs are not completely straightforward. The ratio is a
crude guide to relative efficiency but it is too simplistic to assume
that the Club with the lowest AER is the most efficient and the
Club with the highest the most inefficient.
DIFFICULTIES wITh DIRECT COMPARISONS
There are a number of factors that affect the AER figure, examples
of which include;
— Disproportionately high levels of premium or investment
income will produce a lower AER.
— Different Membership profiles also have an impact.
For example because the Shipowners’ Club has a Membership
which consists of a large number of small ships paying relatively
low premiums per vessel, they have a significantly higher AER
than the other Clubs.
— The exact basis of calculation adopted is also material. For
example, the large ‘jump’ in the Standard Club’s AER in 2004/05
was caused by the Club revising the basis upon which they
calculated their AER. They moved to the basis adopted by most
other Clubs of including commissions within the calculation.
— Loss prevention programmes increase operating costs and
therefore push up the AER. Most Clubs would argue however
that such costs are more than offset by claims avoided.
— If a Club owns its office space, the Club’s operating costs will be
less, therefore reducing the AER.
TREND ANALYSIS
We have included all ten years of
published AERs in the following graph.
Even when reviewing the trends of the
ratio, the analysis does not prove to be
directly helpful. The timing of the
changes in AERs arguably shows greater
(inverse) correlation with investment
and premium income rather than the
level of reported expenses.
The most recent reported years show the
difficulties very clearly. Despite an increase
in actual operating expenses across the
market of 23 percent between 2004/05
and 2007/08, the market average AER
actually reduced by 9 percent over the
same period. The variance is explained by
the cumulative increase in premium and
investment income skewing the ratio.
it is too simplistic to assume that the Club
with the lowest AER is the most efficient and
the Club with the highest the most inefficient.

Japan
Britannia
Gard
London
North of England
Swedish
UK Club
Steamship
Skuld
Standard
West of England
American
Shipowners
AvERAgE ExPENSE RATIOS
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
Market Average
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 3

CLUB
FINANCIAL
PAgES

INTRODUCTION TO CLUB FINANCIAL PAgES
The following section includes our financial summaries for each
Club. The financial analysis in this review is drawn from the
published consolidated financial year results of the Clubs.
As in previous years, our main aim in presenting these summaries
has been consistency. There are still variations between the way
Clubs report, however we have tried as far as possible to compare
‘like with like’. We have simplified and summarised certain
aspects, but where information is available, we have tried to
adopt the same approach for all Clubs.
The figures included/summarised under each heading are
defined below:
Calls and Premiums All calls (gross basis, including brokerage)
Reinsurance Premiums All reinsurance premiums.
Operating Expenses All general management, administrative and audit expenses
(not including claims management costs)
Operating Income Calls, less reinsurance costs, less expenses
Gross Paid Claims Paid gross claims, including Pool contributions
(including claims management costs)
Net Paid Claims Gross paid claims less reinsurance and Pool recoveries.
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) Operating income, less net paid claims
Net Change in Provision for Claims Change in net estimated outstanding claims
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) Paid technical surplus (deficit), plus/minus net change in provision
for claims
Investment Income All investment income, including, exchange gains/losses, tax etc.
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) Incurred Technical surplus (Deficit), plus investment income.
Net Assets (Market) Total assets, less creditors, less miscellaneous provisions for
taxation etc., less additional calls advised but not yet debited.
Net Outstanding Claims Total net estimated outstanding claims.
Forecast Additional Calls Premium / Calls advised but not yet debited.
Free Reserves Net assets, plus forecast additional calls, less outstanding claims.
(Including Forecast Supplementary Calls)
ChANgES TO ThE FORMAT
This year we have amended the format of our financial summaries
slightly to move closer to the way most Clubs report. This has
involved two changes:
— Premiums this year are shown on a gross basis,
whereas previously we presented premiums net after the
deduction of brokerage. Brokerage is now included under
‘operating expenses’.
— We have also included claims handling costs within the claims
figures, whereas previously we stripped out claims handling
costs and included these within ‘operating expenses’.
Both of these changes have been applied retroactively across all
12 years presented.
3 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09

CLUB FINANCIAL PAgES NOTES
BriTaNNia
With effect from the 1997/98 policy year Britannia entered into a
reinsurance contract with Boudicca Insurance Company Limited,
located and regulated in Bermuda. Boudicca Insurance holds assets
in a way that they cannot be dissipated to the detriment of the
reinsurance contract with Britannia. This is intended to be a tax
efficient vehicle for a proportion of Britannia’s reserves.
Boudicca is owned and controlled by the Iceni Trust, a charitable
trust for which Report and Accounts are unavailable. In our
summary page for Britannia for the sake of effective comparison
we have always included Boudicca’s assets in the figures.
The assets of Boudicca as disclosed by the Club are as follows:
1997/98 USD 62 million
1998/99 USD 87 million
1999/00 USD 97.5 million
2000/01 USD 105.4 million
2001/02 USD 106.7 million
2002/03 USD 124.9 million
2003/04 USD 152 million
2004/05 USD 142.8 million
2005/06 USD 132.3 million
2006/07 USD 108.4 million
2007/08 USD 80.3 million
The relationship between Britannia and Boudicca presents an
unusual challenge in terms of trying to show the ‘combined’
picture as accurately as possible.
The adjustments we make to Britannia’s reported figures to show
the overall picture including Boudicca are as follows:
— Britannia reinsurance premiums reduced by amounts paid
to Boudicca
— Britannia paid claims increased by amounts recovered
from Boudicca
— The change in provision of claims for Boudicca added to the
change for Britannia
— Inclusion of a non-technical adjustment under Britannia’s
‘investment income’ heading to reflect the difference between
Boudicca’s investment income and operating costs
NorTh of eNGlaNd / NeWCasTle CluB
The Newcastle Club merged with the North of England in
1998/99. To try to demonstrate the trends as clearly as possible
the 1998/99 year figures for the North of England do not include
the ‘income and expenditure’ figures for the Newcastle Club.
We have however included the Newcastle Club’s free reserve
figure for this year to reflect the total combined reserve. For the
subsequent years we have included the fully integrated figures
under the North of England.
sWedish CluB
The Swedish Club discloses its financial
results on a different basis to the rest
of the International Group. Within the
Swedish Club’s published Report and
Accounts there is no allocation of funds
between their Protection and Indemnity
and Hull and Machinery Classes.
This makes the P&I Class impossible to
compare directly with other Clubs and
consequently we have only included a
partial financial summary for this Club.
sTaNdard aNd Poor’s
Standard and Poor’s (S&P) ratings
mentioned in the following pages fall
into two categories, interactive ratings
and public information ratings. S&P
establish interactive ratings following indepth
meetings with the Club Managers.
Interactively rated Clubs are identified
by ‘*’ after the rating. Public information
ratings are signified by a ‘pi’ subscript
and are established purely on the basis
of the information provided in the Clubs’
published financial statements.
It is the Clubs themselves that choose
whether or not to pursue an interactive
rating and there is a cost to the Club
from S&P for the consequent additional
work involved. When an interactive
rating is undertaken, the rating of the
particular Club usually shows some
form of improvement from the public
information rating.
All ratings are shown as at 1 November in
the years noted.
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 39

AMERICAN CLUB
www.american-club.com
hIghLIghTS
– Entered tonnage reduced, though most of the
variation from 2007/08 due to a change in
the methodology the Club used to disclose their
tonnage figures.
– Premium reduced by 9.6 percent.
– Gross and Net Paid Claims increased by
14.6 percent and 23.8 percent respectively.
– Estimated outstanding claims increased by
USD 5.5 million.
– Investment income of USD 11 million sufficient to
offset the underwriting deficit.
– Modest (USD 2.4 million) overall surplus achieved.
– Assets increased by 9.7 percent, Free Reserves
increased by 7.6 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 161,774 164,166 148,473
Reinsurance Premiums -10,868 -12,010 -13,902
Operating Expenses -36,906 -41,069 -36,298
Operating Income 114,000 111,087 98,273
Gross Paid Claims 75,566 97,040 111,171
Net Paid Claims 66,472 81,914 101,452
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 47,528 29,173 -3,179
Net Change in Provision for Claims 73,222 24,598 5,507
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -25,694 4,575 -8,686
Investment Income 5,659 12,076 11,075
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) -20,035 16,651 2,389
Net Assets (Market) 179,113 208,341 228,458
Net Outstanding Claims 209,948 228,514 239,428
Members Receivables and
Unbilled Assessments
45,764 51,753 44,939
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
14,929 31,580 33,969
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 15,446,194 14,064,721 13,300,000
Chartered/Fixed 3,071,119 4,941,234 500,000
Total 18,517,313 19,005,955 13,800,000
S&P RATINg
0 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
B+* BB-* BB-*
USD Millions
USD Millions
200
150
100
50
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
0
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
97/98
97/98
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
00/01
01/02
01/02
02/03
03/04
Investment Income
02/03
03/04
04/05
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
04/05
05/06
Total Tonnage (GT)
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
97/98
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
98/99
99/00
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
North America
18.5%
Middle
East/
Africa
3.5%
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
97/98
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
98/99
99/00
00/01
North America
18.5%
Middle
East/
Africa
3.5%
01/02
Net Assets
(Market)
02/03
03/04
04/05
Others
Net Outstanding
Claims 0.5%
05/06
06/07
07/08
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Europe
63.5%
Asia
14%
Others
0.5%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Others
Tug/Barge
8%
Passenger
6%
Tankers
21%
1%
General Cargo
7%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Europe
63.5%
Asia
14%
Bulk Carrier
48%
Container
9%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
Tug/Barge
8%
Passenger
6%
Tankers
21%
Gen
7%
DESIG
VESSE

BRITANNIA
www.britanniapandi.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned tonnage stable, chartered tonnage
increased by 5 percent.
– Premium increased by just over 4 percent.
– Substantial increases in Gross and Net Paid
Claims (by 79 and 25 percent respectively).
– Further increase in estimated outstanding claims
(USD 56.9 million increase).
– Continuing significant Incurred Technical Deficit
(2007/08 deficit of USD 79.6 million).
– Respectable investment return partially offsets
underwriting loss, but overall result still a
USD 32.6 million deficit.
– Assets marginally reduced, but Free Reserves
eroded by nearly 11 percent.
– Britannia’s reported figures do not include budgeted
deferred call for the 2007/08 year, which would
contribute USD 45 million to the overall result.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 221,801 233,311 242,897
Reinsurance Premiums -37,855 -39,130 -45,008
Operating Expenses -20,204 -22,238 -24,567
Operating Income 163,742 171,943 173,322
Gross Paid Claims 187,655 166,729 298,879
Net Paid Claims 158,065 154,786 193,001
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 5,677 17,157 -19,679
Net Change in Provision for Claims 20,531 95,524 59,913
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -14,854 -78,367 -79,592
Investment Income 24,735 81,214 47,040
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 9,881 2,847 -32,552
Net Assets (including Boudicca assets) 791,053 848,924 834,985
Net Outstanding Claims 506,106 561,230 580,143
Additional Calls not yet debited
(excludes 2007/08 estimated
supplementary call)
13,700 13,800 14,100
Free Reserves (Including
Supplementary Calls not yet debited,
and including Boudicca)
298,647 301,494 268,942
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 81,700,000 88,000,000 88,000,000
Chartered/Fixed 28,500,000 39,000,000 41,000,000
Total 110,200,000 127,000,000 129,000,000
S&P RATINg
2 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
Api Api Api
USD Millions
USD Millions
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
Total Tonnage (GT)
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
02/03
03/04
Net Assets
(including Boudicca)
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
Net Outstanding
Claims 1%
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Middle East
2%
Asia
50%
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
Free Reserves
(Including Boudicca)
Middle East
2%
Asia
50%
Australasia
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Europe
16%
Americas
8%
Scandinavia
23%
Australasia
1%
Europe
16%
Americas
8%
Scandinavia
23%
Tankers DESIGN Others & DATA
42%
2%
MANAGEMENT
General Cargo
3%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Bulk Carrier
29%
Container
24%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 3
Tankers
42%
General Cargo
3%
DESIG
VESSE

gARD
www.gard.no
hIghLIghTS
– Total entered tonnage increased by 12.6 percent.
– Premiums increased by marginally over 20 percent.
– Increases in Gross and Net Paid Claims of
42 and 39 percent respectively.
– USD 88.8 million increase in estimated outstanding
claims eliminated the paid technical surplus.
– Incurred Technical Deficit deteriorated by
23 percent, the 2007/08 underwriting deficit
registered at USD 60.9 million.
– Strong investment return (8.8 percent) more
than offsets the technical deficit, allowing a
USD 32.4 million overall surplus for 2007/08.
– Assets increased by 9.6 percent, Free Reserves by
6.7 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 287,570 337,096 406,095
Reinsurance Premiums -49,064 -56,057 -59,084
Operating Expenses -27,726 -32,279 -36,394
Operating Income 210,780 248,760 310,617
Gross Paid Claims 202,433 237,200 337,208
Net Paid Claims 185,740 203,025 282,761
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 25,040 45,735 27,856
Net Change in Provision for Claims 39,737 95,245 88,774
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -14,697 -49,510 -60,918
Investment Income 61,778 103,107 93,292
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 47,081 53,597 32,374
Net Assets (Market) 933,231 1,077,628 1,181,643
Net Outstanding Claims 536,768 632,013 720,787
Forecast Additional Calls 33,181 37,626 54,759
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
429,644 483,241 515,615
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 87,100,000 102,500,000 105,900,000
Chartered/Fixed 40,000,000 48,600,000 64,200,000
Total 127,100,000 151,100,000 170,100,000
S&P RATINg
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
A* A+* A+*
USD Millions
USD Millions
500
400
300
200
100
0
125
100
75
50
25
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Asia
19%
Other Europe
21%
Americas
10%
Norway
23%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
97/98
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
98/99
99/00
00/01
Asia
19%
01/02
Net Assets
(Market)
Other Europe
21%
02/03
03/04
Americas
10%
04/05
Net Outstanding
Claims
05/06
06/07
07/08
Norway
23%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Germany
16%
Greece
11%
Gas Carriers
4%
Passenger
2%
Mobile
Offshore
Units
10%
Tankers
38%
Others
3%
Germany
16%
Greece
11%
Bulk Carrier
16%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Container
16%
Other
Dry Cargo
11%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
Gas Carriers
4%
Passenger
2%
Mobile
Offshore
Units
10%
Tan
38
DESIG
VESSE

JAPAN P&I CLUB
www.piclub.or.jp
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by 10 percent.
– Total premiums increased by 40 percent. A large
proportion of this is represented by exchange
differences and increased supplementary calls.
The underlying mutual premium increase was
approximately 15 percent.
– Gross and Net Paid Claims increased by
49 and 18 percent respectively.
– Estimated outstanding claims marginally reduced.
– Overall underwriting surplus of USD 31.7 million.
– Materially negative investment result (includes
foreign exchange losses) erodes the technical surplus.
– 2007/08 Overall result a surplus of
USD 12.8 million.
– Assets increased by 21 percent, Free Reserves by
28 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 135,362 165,019 231,299
Reinsurance Premiums -25,442 -27,663 -48,399
Operating Expenses -15,760 -16,224 -20,906
Operating Income 94,160 121,132 161,994
Gross Paid Claims 82,171 127,855 190,876
Net Paid Claims 85,600 111,760 131,414
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 8,560 9,372 30,580
Net Change in Provision for Claims 7,241 15,920 -1,082
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) 1,319 -6,548 31,662
Investment Income 9,512 4,878 -18,884
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 10,831 -1,670 12,778
Net Assets (Market) 226,345 232,199 282,128
Outstanding Claims (P&I Only) 125,411 140,715 164,717
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves 100,934 91,484 117,411
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 65,660,000 71,880,000 79,230,000
Fixed 3,790,000 4,732,000 3,610,000
Total 69,450,000 76,612,000 82,840,000
S&P RATINg
6 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
BBBpi BBBpi BBBpi
USD Millions
USD Millions
250
200
150
100
50
0
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
Free Reserves
97/98
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
02/03
03/04
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
Outstanding Claims
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF REgISTRY
Singapore
3%
Liberia
4%
Hong Kong
4%
Japan
11%
Bahamas
2%
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
Singapore Bahamas
Net Assets
3% (Market) 2%
Liberia
4%
Hong Kong
4%
Japan
11%
Korea
2%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Others
5%
Panama
69%
Korea
2%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Car Carriers
13%
Tankers
21%
Others
3%
General Cargo
3%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Others
5%
Panama
69%
Bulk Carrier
49%
Container
11%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 7
Car Carriers
13%
Tankers
21%
Gene
3%
DESIG
VESSE

LONDON STEAM-ShIP
www.lsso.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by 6 percent.
– Total premiums increased by just over 1.5 percent.
– Dramatic increase in Gross Paid Claims (106 percent
increase) although Net Paid Claims increased by
only 5 percent.
– Increase in Gross Claims primarily due to payments
in the financial year relating to four major incidents
(‘MSC NAPOLI’, ‘ANNA PC’, ‘PRESTIGE’ and
‘ALEXANDROS T’). Recoveries were made through
the usual Pooling arrangements producing the
‘normal’ Net Paid Claims level.
– Overall underwriting deficit of USD 30.2 million,
20 percent improved on the position in 2006/07.
– Very poor investment result, almost no investment
income registered.
– With nominal investment income to offset the
underwriting result, a USD 30 million overall deficit
reported for 2007/08.
– Assets reduced by 7.8 percent, Free Reserves
reduced by 27 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 95,402 102,003 103,563
Reinsurance Premiums -17,147 -18,439 -20,074
Operating Expenses -9,806 -10,460 -10,897
Operating Income 68,449 73,104 72,592
Gross Paid Claims 113,449 101,805 210,150
Net Paid Claims 92,034 91,256 95,959
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) -23,585 -18,152 -23,367
Net Change in Provision for Claims -16,835 20,010 6,815
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -6,750 -38,162 -30,182
Investment Income 16,920 38,612 138
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 10,170 450 -30,044
Net Assets 283,791 302,621 278,904
Net Outstanding Claims 198,616 218,626 225,441
Forecast Additional Calls 25,303 26,933 27,421
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
110,478 110,928 80,884
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 34,321,055 35,860,908 38,029,162
Chartered/Fixed 931,011 1,189,498 2,126,894
Total 35,252,066 37,050,406 40,156,056
S&P RATINg
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
BBBpi BBBpi BBBpi
USD Millions
USD Millions
250
200
150
100
50
0
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Middle East
4%
Americas
3%
Asia
31%
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
96/97
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Middle East
4%
Americas
3%
Asia
31%
00/01
01/02
Net Assets
02/03
03/04
04/05
Net Outstanding
Claims 3%
05/06
Others
06/07
07/08
Southern European
53%
Northern European
6%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Others
3%
Southern European
53%
Northern European
6%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Tankers
39%
General Cargo
3%
Bulk Carrier
45%
Container/RoRo
13%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9
Tankers
39%
General Cargo
3%
DESIG
VESSE

NORTh OF ENgLAND
www.nepia.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by 17 percent.
– Total Premiums increased by 10 percent.
– Gross and Net Paid Claims increased by
36 and 35 percent respectively.
– Estimated outstanding claims increased by
USD 15 million.
– Incurred Technical Deficit improved by
USD 30 million.
– A very respectable 7.1 percent investment
return more than compensated for the
underwriting deficit.
– Overall Surplus for 2007/08 almost
USD 30 million.
– Assets increased by 7 percent, Free Reserves
by 15.7 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 177,117 193,535 213,015
Reinsurance Premiums -23,991 -28,631 -34,477
Operating Expenses -22,847 -27,479 -28,361
Operating Income 130,279 137,425 150,177
Gross Paid Claims 106,956 115,637 157,853
Net Paid Claims 101,074 109,116 147,028
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 29,205 28,309 3,149
Net Change in Provision for Claims 29,865 70,603 15,101
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -660 -42,294 -11,952
Investment Income 23,729 62,950 41,849
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 23,069 20,656 29,897
Net Assets (Market) 541,105 633,942 678,821
Net Outstanding Claims 373,100 443,701 458,803
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Additional Calls)
168,005 190,241 220,018
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 48,300,000 55,300,000 65,000,000
Chartered/Fixed 12,400,000 14,900,000 25,000,000
Total 60,700,000 70,200,000 90,000,000
S&P RATINg
0 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
A* A* A*
USD Millions
USD Millions
250
200
150
100
50
0
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
03/04
Net Assets
(Market)
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
Net Outstanding
Claims 3%
05/06
06/07
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
North America
3%
Middle East
14%
Asia
21%
Others
3%
Scandinavia
12%
Southern European
23%
Northern European
24%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
North America
3%
Middle East
14%
Asia
21%
Others
Scandinavia
12%
Southern European
23%
Northern European
24%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Others
8%
Tankers
30%
General Cargo
3%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Bulk Carrier
36%
Container
23%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
Others
8%
Tankers
30%
Gen
3%
DESIG
VESSE

ShIPOwNERS
www.shipownersclub.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by 10 percent.
– Premiums increased by 12.4 percent.
– Increases in Gross and Net Paid Claims of
42 and 37 percent respectively.
– Although there was a USD 13.4 million Paid
Technical Surplus, it was wiped out by a USD 43.1
million increase in Estimated Outstanding Claims.
– Incurred Technical Deficit (USD 29.7 million) only
very marginally improved on 2006/07.
– Despite a healthy investment return (nearly
7 percent) this was not sufficient to completely
compensate for the Technical Deficit, resulting in a
USD 6 million Overall Deficit for the year.
– Assets increased by 11.4 percent, Free Reserves
reduced by 4.6 percent.
– Downgraded by S&P from Api to BBBpi with
effect from 3 December 2008.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 116,887 129,598 145,696
Reinsurance Premiums -15,492 -17,860 -21,542
Operating Expenses -21,478 -23,574 -26,950
Operating Income 79,917 88,164 97,204
Gross Paid Claims 52,717 73,512 104,538
Net Paid Claims 48,301 60,996 83,782
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 31,616 27,168 13,422
Net Change in Provision for Claims 25,783 57,358 43,144
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) 5,833 -30,190 -29,722
Investment Income 13,210 32,991 23,751
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 19,043 2,801 -5,971
Net Assets (Market) 265,508 325,667 362,841
Outstanding Claims 138,600 195,958 239,103
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves 126,908 129,709 123,738
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 11,537,740 13,880,387 15,264,101
Chartered/Fixed 407,187 350,000 350,000
Total 11,944,927 14,230,387 15,614,101
S&P RATINg
2 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
Api Api Api
USD Millions
USD Millions
150
120
90
60
30
0
50
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
0
96/97
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
20
15
10
5
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
02/03
03/04
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
07/08
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
North America
5.2%
Latin America
8.7%
Middle East,
India, Africa
10.9%
Others
7.3%
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES BY vESSEL TYPE
Free Reserves
North America
Net Assets
5.2% (Market)
Latin America
8.7%
Middle East,
India, Africa
10.9%
Others
7.3%
Outstanding Claims
Asia and Australasia
42.4%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Europe
25.5%
Asia and Australasia
42.4%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Dry Cargo
11.2%
Tankers
12.3%
Offshore
15.2%
Inland
4.8%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Europe
25.5%
Fishing
7.0%
Harbour
10.9%
Passenger
5.4%
Barges
33.2%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 3
Dry Cargo
11.2%
Tankers
12.3%
Offshor
15.2%
DESIG
VESSE

SkULD
www.skuld.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by nearly
18 percent.
– Premium increased by 10.6 percent.
– Gross Paid Claims increased by 11.5 percent, Net
Paid Claims increased by 12 percent.
– Estimated outstanding claims increased by a
relatively modest USD 14 million.
– Incurred Technical Surplus just over
USD 6 million.
– Investment income substantially reduced on
2006/07 levels, but combined with a positive
underwriting result an Overall Surplus for
2007/08 was recorded at USD 11.5 million.
– Assets increased by 7 percent, Free Reserves
increased by just over 6 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 156,816 174,122 192,654
Reinsurance Premiums -16,880 -19,028 -20,012
Operating Expenses -24,003 -27,244 -29,467
Operating Income 115,933 127,850 143,175
Gross Paid Claims 91,196 113,006 125,960
Net Paid Claims 87,493 109,803 123,054
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 28,440 18,047 20,121
Net Change in Provision for Claims 7,719 11,308 14,000
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) 20,721 6,739 6,121
Investment Income 21,427 33,666 5,420
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 42,148 40,405 11,541
Net Assets (Market) 399,026 451,378 484,448
Net Outstanding Claims 248,317 260,012 280,930
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
150,709 191,366 203,518
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 31,480,000 35,100,000 41,372,458
Chartered/Fixed 36,310,000 37,200,000 49,770,039
Total 67,790,000 72,300,000 91,142,497
S&P RATINg
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
BBB+* A-* A-*
USD Millions
USD Millions
200
150
100
50
0
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
02/03
03/04
Middle East/Africa
4%
Net Assets
(Market)
Scandinavia
30%
Americas
4%
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
Europe (excluding Scandinavia)
34%
Net Outstanding
Claims
07/08
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Asia
28%
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Middle East/Africa
4%
Scandinavia
30%
Americas
4%
Europe (excluding Scandinavia)
34%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Passenger
3%
Container
13%
Tanker
47%
Others
4.5%
Asia
28%
Bulk
22%
General Cargo
10.5%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
Passenger
3%
Container
13%
DESIG
VESSE

STANDARD (BERMUDA)
www.standard-club.com
hIghLIghTS
– Total entered tonnage increased by 13 percent,
though the majority of this was through expansion
of the chartered entry.
– Premiums increased by nearly 11 percent.
– Increases in Gross and Net Paid Claims of
28 and 30 percent respectively.
– USD 24 million decrease in Estimated Outstanding
Claims helps offset the USD 44 million Paid
Technical Deficit.
– Incurred Technical Deficit improved by 50 percent,
the 2007/08 overall underwriting deficit registered
at USD 20 million.
– Respectable investment return (USD 28.7 million)
more than offsets the technical deficit, allowing a
USD 8.7 million overall surplus for 2007/08.
– Despite a reduction in Assets of 2.4 percent, Free
Reserves increased by 4 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 170,378 152,350 168,869
Reinsurance Premiums -30,746 -32,040 -36,461
Operating Expenses -13,386 -15,399 -17,842
Operating Income 126,246 104,911 114,566
Gross Paid Claims 130,018 141,300 181,095
Net Paid Claims 120,119 122,255 158,888
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 6,127 -17,344 -44,322
Net Change in Provision for Claims 22,836 23,279 -24,266
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -16,709 -40,623 -20,056
Investment Income 37,077 65,741 28,783
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 20,368 25,118 8,727
Net Assets (Market) 595,364 643,761 628,222
Net Outstanding Claims 403,087 426,366 402,100
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves (Excluding Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
192,277 217,395 226,122
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 47,000,000 47,625,839 49,931,660
Chartered/Fixed 17,000,000 16,903,352 23,089,250
Total 64,000,000 64,529,191 73,020,910
S&P RATINg
6 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
A* A* A*
USD Millions
USD Millions
200
150
100
50
0
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES
Free Reserves
(Excluding Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
Asia
22%
02/03
03/04
Net Assets
(Market)
South America
3%
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
Others
Net Outstanding
Claims 1%
07/08
Europe
53%
North America
21%
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Asia
22%
South America
3%
Others
1%
Europe
53%
North America
21%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Barges
4%
Passengers
3%
Tankers
29%
Offshore
10%
Others
2%
General/
Dry Cargo
12%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Bulk Carrier
18%
Container
22%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 7
Barges
4%
Passengers
3%
Tankers
29%
Of
10
DESIG
VESSE

STEAMShIP
www.simsl.com
hIghLIghTS
– Total entered tonnage increased by 9 percent.
– Premium increased by just under 14 percent.
– Despite comparatively stable Gross Paid
Claims, material increase in Net Paid Claims
(31 percent increase).
– Substantial improvement in estimated outstanding
claims (reduced by nearly USD 32 million).
– Incurred Technical Surplus of USD 4.5 million.
– Investment income reduced, but still a respectable
4 percent return.
– With positive underwriting and investment results
an overall surplus of USD 27.6 million was achieved
in 2007/08.
– Assets increased by 2.4 percent, Free Reserves
increased by 17.5 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 218,334 227,052 258,538
Reinsurance Premiums 24,843 -30,314 -39,458
Operating Expenses -33,101 -35,569 -31,051
Operating Income 210,076 161,169 188,029
Gross Paid Claims 168,883 249,313 267,347
Net Paid Claims 152,005 164,417 215,267
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 58,071 -3,248 -27,238
Net Change in Provision for Claims 60,667 47,525 -31,739
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -2,596 -50,773 4,501
Investment Income 22,651 51,546 23,147
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 20,055 773 27,648
Net Assets (Market) 557,683 644,431 659,669
Net Outstanding Claims 458,090 505,615 473,876
Forecast Additional Calls 57,779 19,329 0
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
157,372 158,145 185,793
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 41,500,000 43,500,000 46,800,000
Chartered/Fixed 20,500,000 22,300,000 25,000,000
Total 62,000,000 65,800,000 71,800,000
S&P RATINg
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
BBBpi BBBpi BBB+*
USD Millions
USD Millions
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
02/03
03/04
Middle East/Africa
9.5%
Net Assets
(Market)
Latin America
4%
North America
11%
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
Indian Sub-Continent
Net Outstanding
Claims 6.5%
07/08
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
European
33%
Far East
36%
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Middle East/Africa
9.5%
Latin America
4%
North America
11%
Indian Sub-Continent
6.5%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Passenger
10.5%
Tankers
27%
Others
2.5%
General Cargo
8%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
European
33%
Far East
36%
Bulk Carrier
31%
Container
21%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9
Passenger
10.5%
Tankers
27%
DESIG
VESSE

Uk P&I CLUB
www.ukpandi.com
hIghLIghTS
– Entered tonnage relatively stable (Owned tonnage
increased by less than 3 percent).
– Premium increased by just under 8 percent.
– Following the ‘one off’, positive contributions
to claims in 2006/07 (due to the recovery on the
‘ATHOS I’ case), the position normalised
in 2007/08.
– Between 2005/06 and 2007/08 Gross Paid Claims
reduced by 17 percent, while Net Paid Claims
increased by 11 percent over the same period.
– Material increase in estimated outstanding claims
(USD 56.5 million increase).
– Investment income slightly reduced, but still a
healthy 6.5 percent return.
– Investment income offsets the majority of the
USD 96 million technical deficit, but an overall
deficit of USD 33.6 million remains.
– Assets marginally increased, but Free Reserves
reduced by nearly 13 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 354,943 358,419 386,034
Reinsurance Premiums -128,560 -78,308 -74,078
Operating Expenses -41,294 -41,129 -46,836
Operating Income 185,089 238,982 265,120
Gross Paid Claims 391,948 225,348 325,208
Net Paid Claims 274,144 266,272 304,937
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) -89,055 -27,290 -39,817
Net Change in Provision for Claims -51,126 -1,431 56,476
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -37,929 -25,859 -96,293
Investment Income 48,535 71,556 62,689
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 10,606 45,697 -33,604
Net Assets (Market) 925,226 969,492 992,364
Net Outstanding Claims 708,167 706,736 763,212
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
217,059 262,756 229,152
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 105,400,000 107,000,000 110,000,000
Chartered/Fixed 50,000,000 56,000,000 51,000,000
Total 155,400,000 163,000,000 161,000,000
S&P RATINg
60 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
A* A* A-*
USD Millions
USD Millions
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
125
75
25
0
-25
-75
-125
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
02/03
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES
96/97
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Asia-Pacific
27%
00/01
01/02
Net Assets
(Market)
02/03
03/04
03/04
04/05
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
Net Outstanding
Claims
07/08
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Europe
57%
Americas
16%
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Asia-Pacific
27%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Gas Carrier
10%
Tankers
33%
Passenger
9%
Other
Dry Cargo
6%
Europe
57%
Americas
16%
Bulk Carrier
25%
Container/
RoRo
17%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 6
Gas Carrier
10%
Tankers
33%
DESIG
VESSE

wEST OF ENgLAND
www.westpandi.com
hIghLIghTS
– Owned tonnage stable, 11 percent increase in
chartered tonnage.
– 2006/07 Financial year premiums skewed by
contribution of USD 67.7 million of unbudgeted calls.
– The 2007/08 premium roughly 4 percent reduced on
2005/06 level (though tonnage 10 percent less over
the same period).
– Despite almost unchanged gross paid claims, net
paid claims increased by 33 percent.
– The large increase in paid claims is partially offset
by a USD 42.2 million improvement in estimated
outstanding claims.
– Investment income returns to a more ‘normal’ level
(roughly a 7 percent return) after the exceptional
result in 2006/07.
– Investment income insufficient to offset the
USD 60 million technical deficit, resulting in an
overall deficit for the year of USD 31.5 million.
– Assets reduced by just over 8 percent, Free Reserves
decreased by just over 15 percent.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 251,362 326,126 240,993
Reinsurance Premiums -45,875 -48,583 -46,216
Operating Expenses -38,086 -41,430 -41,441
Operating Income 167,401 236,113 153,336
Gross Paid Claims 254,120 270,777 272,215
Net Paid Claims 184,341 191,601 255,585
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) -16,940 44,512 -102,249
Net Change in Provision for Claims 12,119 34,646 -42,246
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -29,059 9,866 -60,003
Investment Income 28,160 48,769 28,492
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) -899 58,635 -31,511
Net Assets (Market) 524,861 611,996 560,823
Net Outstanding Claims 419,428 454,074 411,828
Forecast Additional Calls 27,105 46,730 24,622
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
132,538 204,652 173,617
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT)
2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 60,200,000 54,500,000 54,000,000
Chartered/Fixed 19,900,000 16,200,000 18,000,000
Total 80,100,000 70,700,000 72,000,000
S&P RATINg
62 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
2006 2007 2008
BBBpi BBBpi BBBpi
USD Millions
USD Millions
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims Total Tonnage (GT)
97/98
98/99
99/00
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
OvERALL FINANCIAL
YEAR RESULT
Investment Income
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Overall Surplus
for Year (Deficit)
05/06
06/07
07/08
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Entered Tonnage (GT, millions)

USD Millions
USD Millions
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
98/99
99/00
99/00
00/01
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
ASSETS AND
FREE RESERvES
96/97
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
97/98
02/03
03/04
Net Assets
(Market)
03/04
04/05
Middle East and Afria
6.5%
Asia
29%
04/05
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
Net Outstanding
Claims
European (including Russia)
48.5%
07/08
DESIGN & DATA
MANAGEMENT
Americas
16%
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Middle East and Afria
6.5%
Asia
29%
European (including Russia)
48.5%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Ferries/Passenger
8.3%
Tankers
25%
General Cargo
10.3%
Others
4%
Americas
16%
Bulk Carrier
30.4%
Container/RoRo
22%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 63
Ferries/Passenger
8.3%
Tankers
25%
Gen
10.
DESIG
VESSE

LIvERPOOL & LONDON
hIghLIghTS
– Club in Run-Off
– Following approval of the UK Financial Services
Authority in summer 2007, the Club voted to
return USD 25 million of the Free Reserve to
the Membership.
– This is reflected in the negative entry in the 2007/08
premium entry.
– The USD 25 million was redistributed across
‘eligible members’, effectively those Members
remaining in the Club when it ceased active
underwriting. The redistribution was based on the
premium paid and tonnage entered across the ten
years leading up to 19 February 2000.
– Continued positive developments in the claims
run off.
– Respectable investment performance (combination
of investment income and exchanges gains) of
approximately 4.5 percent
– As expected assets reduced by 32 percent, primarily
due to the redistribution of funds to Members
– Free Reserve 60 percent reduced, but still just over
USD 14 million as at 20 February 2008
– The final three policy years (1997, 1998 and
1999) remain open, though at the time of
the redistribution, Members were given the
discretionary option to continue underwriting the
risk, or release themselves from further exposure.
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
YEAR SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 731 2 -25,189
Reinsurance Premiums - 40 -
Operating Expenses -708 -410 -555
Operating Income 23 -368 -25,744
Gross Paid Claims 9,903 4,380 2,637
Net Paid Claims 7,655 3,487 2,425
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) -7,632 -3,855 -28,169
Net Change in Provision for Claims -9,777 4,073 -3,778
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -2,145 -7,928 -24,391
Investment Income 1,036 6,941 2,545
Overall Surplus for Year (Deficit) 3,181 -987 -21,846
Net Assets
Outstanding Claims
76,212
39,215
79,298
43,288
53,674
39,510
0
Forecast Additional Calls 0 0 0
Free Reserves (Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
36,997 36,010 14,164 -50
6 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
USD Millions
USD Millions
USD Millions
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
50
25
0
-25
-50
200
150
100
gROSS UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
96/97
96/97
Calls & Premiums Gross Paid Claims
97/98
98/99
99/00
Paid Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
NET UNDERwRITINg
DEvELOPMENT
50
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
00/01
Change in Estimated
Outstanding Claims
01/02
01/02
02/03
02/03
03/04
03/04
04/05
04/05
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Incurred Technical
Surplus (Deficit)
05/06
05/06
06/07
06/07
07/08
ASSETS AND FREE RESERvES
Free Reserves
(Including Forecast
Supplementary Calls)
Net Assets Outstanding Claims
07/08

ThE SwEDISh CLUB
www.swedishclub.com
The Swedish Club writes P&I, FD&D and Hull and Machinery (H&M)
classes of business. The Club provides separate summary financial
statements for the P&I Class, but it does not allocate total reserves of
the Club across all the different classes written. Meaningful financial
comparisons with other P&I Clubs are therefore limited.
In terms of premium income the Swedish Club continues to be the
smallest Club in the IG by some margin (roughly 40 percent less
premium than the next smallest Club). The Club has developed a much
more international P&I Membership over the last decade. Swedish
tonnage now represents only 7 percent of their portfolio, compared
with around 50 percent ten years ago.
hIghLIghTS
– Owned entered tonnage increased by just over 13 percent
– Premium increased by 19.4 percent
– Gross and Net Paid Claims increased by 73 percent and 38 percent
respectively
– Estimated outstanding claims reduced USD 8.7 million
– Incurred Technical Deficit of just over USD 14.4 million
– Very healthy 12.6 percent return on investments for the Club as a
whole. Of this USD 10.8 million was allocated to the P&I Class.
– Despite the healthy contribution of investment income, the overall
result was still a USD 3.6 million deficit
– For the Club overall (including all Classes) a USD 2.3 million deficit
translated to a reduction in Free Reserves from USD 102 million to
USD 99.7 million
Others
2.2%
P&I CLASS ONLY - FINANCIAL YEAR
SUMMARY (USD 000’S)
Asia
30%
2006/07 2007/08
Calls and Premiums 52,044 62,161
Reinsurance Premiums -11,533 -19,324
Operating Expenses -7,200 -8,706
Operating Income 33,281 34,131
Gross Paid Claims 80,124 138,654
Net Paid Claims 28,890 39,853
Paid Technical Surplus (Deficit) 4,391 -5,722
Net Change in Provision for Claims -9,430 -8,716
Incurred Technical Surplus (Deficit) -5,039 -14,438
Investment Income 14,560 10,813
Surplus for Year (Deficit) 9,521 -3,625
ENTERED TONNAgE (gT) Sweden
7.3% 2006 2007 2008
Owned/Mutual 19,600,000 22,200,000 25,130,000
Chartered/Fixed 1,100,000 3,500,000 12,800,000
Total 20,700,000 25,700,000 37,930,000
S&P RATINg
Southern Europe
32.3%
Northern Europe
28.2%
2006 2007 2008
DESIGN BBB-* BBB* & DATA
BBB*
MANAGEMENT
TONNAgE DISTRIBUTION
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Others
2.2%
Asia
30%
Sweden
7.3%
Southern Europe
32.3%
Northern Europe
28.2%
DESIGN & DATA
BY vESSEL TYPE
MANAGEMENT
Passenger
1.9%
Tankers
19.8%
General Cargo
2.2%
Other
0.1%
Bulk Carrier
21.8%
Container RORO
54.2%
DESIGN & DATA
VESSEL TYPE
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 6
Passenger
1.9%
Tankers
19.8%
General Cargo
2.2%
DESIG
VESSE

SUPPLEMENTARY
CALL hISTORY

hISTORIC SUPPLEMENTARY
CALL ACCURACY
MARkET TREND
The ‘Market Average’ graph to the right
shows the average supplementary call
performance of the combined market,
from 1987 to 2008.
The graph highlights the market wide
problems from 1987 to 1991, when the vast
majority of Clubs were forced to charge
substantial over-budget supplementary
calls. This pattern improved dramatically
in subsequent years, and the trend since
1992 is one of relatively isolated problems
against a backdrop of stability.
The main Clubs over-calling in the mid
1990’s were the Liverpool and London,
Newcastle and Ocean Marine. These
Clubs were all subsequently forced to
cease underwriting, either by merging or
entering run-off.
The two peaks of unbudgeted calls since
the mid 1990’s (stemming from the years
2001 and 2008) both coincided with
periods in low or negative investment
income. Clubs involved included the Skuld
and Steamship mutual in 2000/2001 and
London Steam-Ship and UK P&I Club in
2008. In addition, the West of England
made ‘solvency’ calls in 2006 and the
American Club has been more routinely
above budget than any other Club in the
last fifteen years.
vARIANCE BETwEEN CLUBS
The divergence in the supplementary call
performance of the Clubs is considerable.
The three following graphs provide
comparative ‘snap shots’ of the average
supplementary call performance of each
Club over the last fifteen, ten and six year
periods. The best performing Clubs are
shown to the left of the graphs, with those
Clubs over-budget towards the right.
6 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
MARkET AvERAgE - AvERAgE vARIANCE IN
ESTIMATED TOTAL CALL
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
PERCENTAgE vARIATION FROM ESTIMATED TOTAL
CALL – AvERAgE FROM 1994 TO 2008
Shipowners
Britannia
Gard
Standard (Bermuda)
Japan
North of England
Standard (London)
United Kingdom
London
Swedish Club
Skuld
Steamship
West of England
American Club

Over the last fifteen years the market has
moved on from the collective problems
of the late 1980’s, to the situation where
in any one year the majority of Clubs will
perform on, or below their budgeted levels.
What is perhaps surprising though is
that in recent years the trend is arguably
getting worse rather than better. In the
last five years, six Clubs have been forced
to make unbudgeted supplementary calls,
already exceeding the problems at the
turn of the century. Despite an increased
focus on solvency, reserving accuracy and
the increased sophistication of financial
monitoring, a number of Clubs have not
been quick enough and/or well reserved
enough to respond to the recent surge in
claims, combined with the evaporation of
investment income.
It is interesting to note by contrast, that
out of the headlines of the unbudgeted
calls, a small minority of Clubs are
still continuing to not charge their full
supplementary call estimates.
Based purely on supplementary call
performance, the market almost cuts
down the middle, with a clear distinction
between those Clubs consistently
performing at or below budgeted levels
and those for varying reasons forced to
charge excess calls.
To put the variance between Clubs in
perspective, the difference between the
best and worst performing (large vessel)
Clubs over the most recent six years is 25
percent. This means that with the same
initial estimated total call for each of the
six years, an owner entered in the best
performing Club would be 25 percent, per
year, better off than an owner entered in
the worst performing Club.
PERCENTAgE vARIATION FROM ESTIMATED TOTAL
CALL – AvERAgE FROM 1999 TO 2008
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
PERCENTAgE vARIATION FROM ESTIMATED TOTAL
CALL – AvERAgE FROM 2003 TO 2008
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
Shipowners
Shipowners
Britannia
Britannia
Gard
Gard
Standard (Bermuda)
NOrth of England
Japan
Skuld
North of England
Standard (Bermuda)
Standard (London)
Standard (London)
Skuld
Swedish Club
United Kingdom
Japan
Swedish Club
United Kingdom
Steamship
Steamship
London
London
West of England
West of England
American Club
American Club
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 69

FUTURE TRENDS
In the current environment, with the
collapse in investment income and with
no imminent abatewment in claims costs
likely, we fully expect announcements
of unbudgeted calls. As consistently
highlighted in our recent reviews we
still do not expect this to spread to the
vast majority of the market, as it did in
the late 1980’s.
The inherent issues with the American Club
continue to make it the most vulnerable to
further fluctuations in the investment and/
or claims climate, increasing the probability
of this Club making further unbudgeted
calls in the future.
The stronger half of the market are
likely to continue to be stable from a
supplementary call perspective.
The broad market picture is therefore
expected to be five or six specific problems
at the bottom, contrasted with one or two
isolated rebates at the top.
70 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
SUPPLEMENTARY
CALL hISTORY
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The following pages provide comparative information on the
supplementary/deferred call history of the market.
In recent years a number of Clubs have changed terminology to
use the phrase ‘deferred premium’ rather than ‘supplementary
call’. Similarly, instead of ‘estimated total call’ (‘advance call’
+ ‘supplementary call’) several Associations have introduced
expressions such as ‘mutual premium’, ‘estimated total premium’
etc. These changes in terminology are purely cosmetic and have
no impact on the underlying principle. All the International
Group Clubs remain mutual insurers and have the ability to
charge additional premiums or allow rebates on originally
estimated premiums.
In the following pages we have tried to compare ‘like with like’
regardless of the actual terminology used by individual Clubs.
Policy Year: 1994 / 1995 1995 / 1996 1996 / 1997 1997 / 1998 1998 / 1999 1999 / 2000 2000 / 2001
Supplementary /
Deferred Call Estimate:
Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current
American Club 65 65 50 68 25 34 25 25 25 25 25 45 25 115
Britannia 40 -5 25 -10 25 -7.5 25 0 25 10 25 15 25 25
Gard 40 35 30 15 30 0 30 0 30 0 25 15 25 25
Japan Club 20 0 20 20 20 10 20 10 20 0 20 15 20 20
Liverpool & London 40 170 25 112.95 25 116 25 172 25 25 25 25 n/a n/a
London Steamship 40 30 40 30 40 40 40 30 40 20 40 40 40 40
Newcastle 40 96 40 130 40 164 40 140 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
North of England 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 25 25
Ocean Marine 30 95 30 95 40 180 40 180 40 110 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shipowners 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0
Skuld 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 20 45 20 65
Standard (Bermuda) 25 25 25 10 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 15 25 25
Standard (London) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Steamship 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 60 43 86
Swedish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 0 0 0 0
UK 40 40 40 30 40 25 40 25 40 30 40 30 33 33
West of England 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

The analysis is broken down as follows:
daTa TaBle
The main reference table below shows in figures the original and
final/current estimates for the supplementary/deferred calls of all
the Clubs from 1994/95 to 2009/10.
iNdividual CluB resulTs
- oriGiNal vs. fiNal suPPlemeNTary Calls
The data from the main reference table is displayed graphically
without any analysis for each Club. The graphs show the original
estimated supplementary call and the actual call for each Club over
the period 1993 to 2008. Displaying the graphs together facilitates
the comparison of individual Clubs’ supplementary call trends.
iNdividual CluB resulTs - PerCeNTaGe variaTioN
from oriGiNal esTimaTed ToTal Call
Pages 75-77 provide a more direct comparison of all the Clubs’
supplementary call results. Each graph shows the percentage
variation from original estimated total call for each Club over the
period 1993 to 2008. The graphs are on the same scale and provide
direct comparison of the individual Clubs’ supplementary call
performance and trends over the period.
2001 / 2002 2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 2007 / 2008 2008 / 2009 2009 / 2010
Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current Original Current
25 60 40 70 20 56 0 0 0 20 0 35 0 30 0 25 20 20
25 25 40 40 40 40 40 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 20 25 25 25 25 25 25
20 10 20 20 30 10 30 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 40 40
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 89 40 89 40 75 40 75
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
25 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 10
20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 25 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 100 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 0 0 0 0
33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 60 33 67 33 60 33 33
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 20 35 20 40 20 55 20 65 30 30
Where Clubs charge on an Estimated Mutual Basis, the supplementary / deferred call figure provided refers to the percentage
charged after expiry of the policy period (relative to the premium charged during the policy year). These are shown in red.
= Closed = Open
NB: Percentage Variation from original
Estimated Total Call
This is a measure whereby the Clubs’
supplementary call performance can be
directly compared. It is necessary for a
clear comparison, as individual Clubs
use a wide range of original estimated
supplementary calls.
– A zero percentage variance from
estimated total calls signifies that
the Club has charged exactly what it
estimated for that year.
– A negative percentage variance shows
that the Club charged less than it
originally estimated for the year in
question.
– A positive variance highlights that the
Club actually charged more than was
originally estimated for the year.
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 7

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
COMPARISON OF
ORIgINAL AND ACTUAL
SUPPLEMENTARY COSTS
10%
0%
AMERICAN CLUB
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
gARD
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
72 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BRITANNIA
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
JAPAN P&I CLUB
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
LONDON CLUB
0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
ShIPOwNERS
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
STANDARD
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NORTh OF ENgLAND
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
SkULD
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
STEAMShIP
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 73

40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SwEDISh
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
Uk P&I CLUB
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
wEST OF ENgLAND
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
7 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
LIvERPOOL & LONDON
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
NEwCASTLE
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call
OCEAN MARINE
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Original Supplementary Call Estimate Actual Supplementary Call

PERCENTAgE vARIATION
FROM INITIAL ESTIMATED
TOTAL CALL
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-10%
-20%
-30%
AMERICAN CLUB
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
gARD
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-10%
-20%
-30%
BRITANNIA
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
JAPAN P&I CLUB
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 7

-10%
-20%
-30%
LONDON CLUB
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-10%
-20%
-30%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ShIPOwNERS
76 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
STANDARD
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-10%
-20%
NORTh OF ENgLAND
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
SkULD
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
STEAMShIP
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
SwEDISh
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-10%
-20%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Uk P&I CLUB
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
wEST OF ENgLAND
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
LIvERPOOL & LONDON
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
NEwCASTLE
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
OCEAN MARINE
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Percentage Variation from Estimated Total Call
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 77

RELEASE
CALLS

The intention of release calls is to
remove any potential future liability
for further calls to the Club, following
termination of membership in the
particular Club.
By paying the release call the Member is ‘released’ from any
further obligation to pay future supplementary call contributions
to the Club. In essence therefore the release call is intended to
represent the Member’s proportion of the Club’s incurred but
not reported (IBNR) claims for the open years.
This original intent does not appear to be mirrored in
today’s practice.
We have included on the next page a graph displaying the current
release calls in force for all the Clubs. Evidently there is a wide
range: Clubs like the Shipowners’ Club or Japan represent the
lower, acceptable, end of the market with release calls set at nil and
5 percent respectively. At the higher end of the market nine Clubs
have at least one open policy year with release calls set at 20 or 25
percent. The release calls of the West of England and the Swedish
Club stand out as the worst in the market.
The lack of consistency in the range of release calls does not stand
up to logical interrogation. For example, it is clearly not realistic
to believe that the Gard, North of England or Standard Club
are four or five more times more likely to make an unbudgeted
supplementary call than the Japan Club.
The Shipowners’ Club should be singled out for praise for taking
the step in 2008 to reduce all their release call estimates to zero.
The Shipowners’ Club specialise in smaller tonnage and arguably
have a relatively predictable claims pattern, however they are
subject to greater competitive pressure than any other member
Club in the International Group. This step will hopefully be
perceived as a positive reflection on the Club’s confidence in
their own performance.
0 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Clubs have a wide variety of sophisticated
modelling methods at their disposal. It is
therefore curious that a Club at the higher
end of the release calls range believes their
claims may exceed expectation by a margin
of 25 percent, even one or two years after
the expiry of the policy year in question.
The general levels of some Clubs are even
more objectionable when you account for
the fact that in the event of unexpected
results all Clubs have the option of
increasing their release calls at any point
to protect the general membership.
Release calls are a significant factor in the
transfer of business from Club to Club. It
is easy to see why the release call levels
of some Clubs are perceived more like a
commercial ‘penalty’ for moving, rather
than a realistic assessment of the potential
for unbudgeted supplementary calls.

American
Britannia
Gard
Japan Club
London Steamship
North of England
Shipowners
Skuld
Standard (Bermuda)
Standard (London)
Steamship
Swedish
UK
West of England
RELEASE CALLS
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
0
0
0
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |

P&I FIxED
PREMIUM
MARkET

Following the contraction in the fixed premium market in 2006 it
has subsequently remained stable with no withdrawals from the
market and no new competition entering.
The long awaited Vega Marine appears to have failed before ever
actually formally launching a single viable product.
Each fixed premium insurer has continued to try to expand
their market share by offering higher limits and exploring
new product areas.
Raets P&I increased the limit available for Owned P&I from USD
100 million to USD 500 million in 2007. Similarly both Navigators
and Osprey increased the limit available from USD 25 million
to USD 50 million. Osprey has recently continued this process
by doubling the maximum limit they are able to offer, from
USD 50 million to USD 100 million.
Most product development has revolved around charterers
liability. The British Marine and Navigators had always been able
to write charterers business, but historically their efforts were not
particularly well focussed. They have, coincidentally, both now
put together new reinsurance programmes geared specifically
towards charterers liability. Their expectation is that these more
purposeful programmes will allow them to target charterers
liability business more competitively.
This development somewhat follows the trend of the
International Group Clubs in the charterers liability sector.
All Clubs historically have been able to write fixed premium
charterers liability business, but until relatively recently only two
or three Clubs had separate charterers reinsurance allowing them
to target stand alone charterers effectively.
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
In the last couple of years there has been
a great deal of activity in this sector
and currently all of the International
Group Clubs have some form of
specific charterers liability reinsurance
programme. The initial Clubs specialising
in this area remain the market leaders, but
there is now greater choice available. The
market leading International Group Clubs
are in a position to offer charterers cover
with limits up to USD 1 billion.
Fixed premium P&I insurers do not
announce ‘General Increases’ as such, as
this is very much a mutual concept. The
fixed market is however in a similar claims
environment to the Clubs and they will
review each insured’s loss record in the
context of the wider environment like
any other commercial insurer at renewal.
There will certainly be inflationary
pressures and increased reinsurance
costs for the fixed premium P&I market.
As usual they will try to pass on their
increased costs to ship operators, if the
commercial environment allows them to.
Competition in the small vessel sector
continues to remain intense and as a
result increases (if any) will again remain
modest compared to those announced by
the International Group Clubs.
Facility Maximum P&I Limit (USD) Standard and Poor’s Rating Number of Vessels
(Owned P&I)
British Marine 1 billion A+ 9,655
Ingosstrakh 500 million BBB- 1,110
Raets P&I* 500 million A Fortis Corporate 3,000
Insurance NV**
Navigators 50 million A (Strong) 1,750
Osprey 100 million A+ (Lloyd’s) N/A
Other Mutual P&I Facilities
South of England 500 million Mutual / Unrated 660
Charterers Only Facilities
Charterers Club 300 million A+ (Lloyd’s)*** N/A
*(To be renamed Raets Marine Insurance B.V. from 1 January 2009)
**(From 1 January 2009 to AA- Swiss Re International SE)
***(From 1 January 2009 to AA-Munich Re)

BRITISh MARINE
www.britishmarine.com
British Marine Luxembourg SA (British Marine) completed a
successful demutualisation in February 2000. In late 2005 British
Marine was bought by QBE Insurance Group (QBE). As the next
step of the integration of British Marine into the QBE Group, their
security will transfer from British Marine Luxembourg SA to QBE
Insurance (Europe) Limited with effect from 1 January 2009.
British Marine continue to reiterate that they will operate in much
the same way as before, with the retention of the existing brand and
management team.
British Marine’s strategy continues to concentrate on their
traditional core business consisting of smaller vessels up to a
maximum of around 10,000 GT. Europe remains the largest source
of business (55 percent of the total book) followed by the Far and
Middle East (13 percent and 11 percent respectively). The spread of
vessel type remains consistent with previous years with dry cargo
vessels continuing to represent the largest class of vessel.
British Marine aims, with some success, to combine a mutualstyle
service with a fixed premium product. They also have the
ability to offer Charterers Liability, Hull and Machinery insurance
and Freight Demurrage & Defence in addition to P&I.
2008 has been another year of growth for British Marine. Building
on the expansion of the last three, British Marine again expanded
by a further 600 vessels in 2008 (the insurer has grown from
7,900 vessels in 2006 to 9,655 in 2008). In terms of owned insured
tonnage Australasia this now Middle equates East to Eastern a total portfolio Scandinavia slightly in excess of
2% 13% Europe
4%
12 million GT.
11%
Americas &
British Marine favoured maximum limit is USD Carribean 500 million, but it
can Southern offer limits up to USD 1 billion each incident on 7% a selective basis.
Europe
British 26% Marine has always been able to write charterers liability
insurance, but it has never been a major coverage area for the insurer.
During 2007 they revamped their reinsurances in this area, with
the intention of targeting charterers business more seriously in the
future. They are now able to write Charterers P&I, Damage to Hull,
Freight Demurrage & Defence and loss of charterers’ bunkers for all
Far East
types of charterer for vessels up to 30,000 GT.
14%
The maximum limits available on the chartered side are USD 100
million Northern for Europe Charterers Indian P&I Sub-Continent
and USD 50 million Other for Charterers
Damage 18%
to Hull. Freight Demurrage 4% and Defence 1% limits tend to
be fixed case by case but would normally be in the region of USD 1
to USD 2 million.
British Marine is A+ rated by Standard and Poor’s and QBE
Europe has the same financial rating.
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Australasia
2%
Southern
Europe
26%
Northern Europe
18%
Middle East
13%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Others
1%
Inland craft
8%
General Cargo
39%
Unitised
10%
Eastern
Europe
11%
Indian Sub-Continent
4%
Tanker
7%
Scandinavia
4%
Americas &
Carribean
7%
Far East
14%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 |
Other
1%
Fishing
8%
Bulker
11%
Tugs
1%
Yachts
1%
MIscellaneous
Carriers
14%

BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
South America
13%
Europe
41%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Passenger/
Pleasure
2%
Supply/Offshore
6%
Tanker
12%
6 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Middle East
12%
Carribean
2%
Tugs and
Barges
8%
Africa
5%
Far East
17%
Central
America
10%
Bulk Carrier
5%
Fishing
3%
General Cargo
64%
NAvIgATORS
PROTECTION
AND INDEMNITY
www.navpandi.com
Passenger/ Tanker Tugs and Bulk Carrier
Navigators P&I Pleasure facility began 12% underwriting Bargeson
1 January 2004, 5%
2%
8%
following the appointment by Navigators Insurance Group
(Navigators) of the team that set up Terra Nova P&I.
Fishing
3%
In the 2007 policy year Navigators increased the maximum limit
of liability available from USD 25 million to USD 50 million any
one accident or occurrence. Navigators focus on vessels engaged
in coast-wise, inland and short sea trades, and seek only to insure
vessels up to 10,000 GT.
European tonnage constitutes 41 percent of the total premium
income, with general cargo vessels representing 64 percent of the
facility’s portfolio.
In addition to Owned Supply/Offshore P&I, Navigators are also able General to provide Cargo
cover for contractual 6% liabilities by way of contractual extensions 64%
to the main P&I cover. Navigators similarly introduced a
Charterers facility with a maximum combined single limit of
USD 50 million. The Charterers facility has identical vessel
underwriting parameters as the owned book.
Navigators P&I gross premium in 2006 was USD 26.64 million.
In the same year they paid claims of USD 9.5 million. In 2007
gross premiums increased to USD 27.08 million, with claims
increasing to USD 12.05 million. In percentage terms, claims
compared to premium income increased from 35 percent in
2006 to 45 percent in 2007.
The underwriting team has changed since our last Review with
the two founders of Terra Nova P&I retiring from underwriting.
Although there was succession planning there is always a learning
curve for a team in such circumstances.
Navigators P&I do not underwrite US flagged vessels, but can
arrange COFRs for those vessels trading to the US.
Navigators are A rated by Standard and Poor’s.

OSPREY
UNDERwRITINg
AgENCY LTD
www.osprey-uwr.co.uk
Osprey was founded in 1991 as an agency underwriting on behalf
of Lloyd’s.
From the beginning, their focus was on providing cover to owners
that did not require the limits offered by the mutual Clubs.
Consequently, Osprey concentrate on smaller vessels, with
relatively limited trading.
Along with other fixed premium insurers, in response to
competition and demands from ship operators, 2007 saw Osprey
double the maximum limit of liability available to USD 50 million
any one accident or occurrence. In 2008 they have increased the
limit further to USD 100 million.
Unlike the other fixed premium facilities mentioned in the
Review, Osprey is also willing to insure US domiciled operators.
In terms of premium income the US market represents almost 60
percent of their portfolio. Fishing vessels represent the largest
class of vessels (42 percent) closely followed by Tugs and Barges
(34 percent).
Osprey’s P&I wording, along with that of the other fixed premium
providers, offers similar ‘heads of cover’ to the mutual Clubs.
Besides standard P&I, Osprey are able to provide cover for:
– Maritime Employers’ Liability Asia exposures: Carribean for those who do
9%
3%
not operate vessels but whose employees work within the
maritime industry
Europe
– Third Party Liability coverage for owners and 22% / or operators of
shipyards, terminals, stevedores, wharfingers and other marine
contracting companies
– Hull and Machinery insurance for vessels up to 10,000 GT
engaged in the carriage of dry cargoes
In addition to the above, Osprey, as a company has also introduced
a dedicated yacht underwriting Agency, Osprey Special Risks.
Osprey’s policy forms are backed by Lloyd’s security which is
A+ rated by Standard and Poor’s.
North America
59%
South America
3%
Middle
East
4%
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
North America
59%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Other
2%
Fishing Vessels
42%
Craft
5%
General Cargo
5%
Asia
9%
South America
3%
Crew Only
5%
Carribean
3%
Europe
22%
Middle
East
4%
Passenger and Pleasure
3%
Dredgers
4%
Tugs and
Barges
34%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 7

BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Other
5%
Europe
67%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Fishing
23%
Yacht
9%
Barge
11%
Middle East inc. India
9%
| Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Tug
10%
Asia Pacific
17%
Central South America
2%
General Cargo
21%
Reefers
6%
Dry
Container
2%
Others
18%
RAETS P&I
TO BE RENAMED RAETS MARINE
www.RaetsPandi.com
www.RaetsMarine.com
From 1 January Fishing 2009 Raets P&I will be renamed Tug Raets Marine Reefers
Insurance B.V. Raets 23% Marine will be a single 10% brand name for 6%
the group.
Dry
Yacht
Container
9%
2%
RaetsMarine continue with the head office located in Rotterdam
and branch offices in Singapore, Paris and London. RaetsMarine
offers the following P&I and marine liability products:
– Charterers Liability for all types of charterers, traders,
operators etc.
– Protection and Indemnity insurance for all types of seagoing
vessels up to 10,000 GT.
– Protection and Indemnity insurance for all types of inland craft.
– MultiModal, Port & Logistics Insurance for Marine Related
Companies.
Barge
General Cargo Others
Raets Marine began 11% initially only writing charterers’ 21% liability 18%
business in 1994. They are able to write any type of charterers’
business irrespective of size. The majority of the portfolio is from
tramp chartering (both voyage and time charters) and commodity
traders who are chartering vessels to carry their own cargoes.
Gross premium income is expected to total around USD 40
million for the 2008 policy year
The ability to write Owned P&I cover on a fixed premium basis
was launched in 1999. RaetsMarine currently insure around
3,000 vessels, equating to just over 5 million GT. Like much of
the fixed premium P&I market, RaetsMarine focus on vessels up
to around 10,000 GT. Their preferred tonnage is dry cargo ships,
but they also write fishing vessels, tugs, supply vessels and other
specialised craft.
Cover is restricted to those operators who do not regularly trade
trans-Atlantic, trans-Pacific or to the USA.
The maximum limit of liability available for Reats Marine P&I
and Charterers Liability is USD 500 million any one accident or
occurrence. For Freight Demurrage & Defence the available limit
is USD 2 million any one accident or occurrence.
All risks written by Raets P&I are currently 100 percent ceded
to Fortis Insurance NV in the Netherlands. With effect from
1 January 2009 the security will change to Swiss Re.
Fortis Insurance NV are A rated by Standard and Poor’s.
Swiss Re are AA- rated by Standard & Poor’s.

OThER MARkETS
There are a number of other facilities offering fixed premium P&I
cover. Of these Ingosstrakh (formerly the Russian State Insurance
company for international business) is of note, particularly for
Russian and ex-Russian business.
INgOSSTRAkh INSURANCE CO
www.ingos.ru
Ingosstrakh have been offering P&I insurance for 30 years. Their
current portfolio consists mainly of owners / operators from
Russia and other eastern European countries. The remaining
portfolio, whilst appearing to be of an international nature, has in
most cases a Russian or former Russian connection.
Ingosstrakh P&I cover is similar to that provided by the
International Group Clubs. Freight Demurrage & Defence cover is
also available.
Historically, limits of liability were offered up to a maximum of
USD 100 million, although the majority of owners require limits
of no more than USD 10 million. Since 2005 Ingosstrakh have
been able to offer limits up to USD 500 million.
Ingosstrakh cover a large range of vessels, from very small ships
operating inland and coastal waters, to larger ocean going vessels
(in excess of 20,000 GT). They will not write large tankers, cruise
vessels or US registered or operated craft.
2000-2005 2006 1959-1969 1970-1979
3% 3% 10% 31%
Ingosstrakh currently insure approximately 1,100 vessels, the
1995-1999
majority of which are dry cargo ships.
3%
Ingosstrakh have been offering charterers cover for ten years.
The maximum limit available is USD 100 million.
Ingosstrakh are rated BBB- by Standard and Poor’s, with a
National Scale rating of ruAA+
1990-1994
12%
1980-1989
38%
BY YEAR BUILT
1995-1999
3%
1990-1994
12%
2000-2005
3%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Fishing
9%
General Cargo
44%
Reefer
2%
2006
3%
1959-1969
10%
Tanker
14%
Bulkers
8%
Barge
8%
1970-1979
31%
1980-1989
38%
Passengers
2%
RORO
4%
Tug
3%
Other
6%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9

BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Africa
6%
Europe
9%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Bulker
53%
Livestock
1%
RORO
1%
Rest of World
15%
Passenger
2%
90 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Middle East inc India
24%
General Cargo
24%
Asia Pacific
46%
Tanker
15%
Reefer
1%
Barge
1%
Container
2%
SOUThERN SEAS (EUROPE) LIMITED &
SOUTh OF ENgLAND PROTECTION AND
INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA)
LIMITED (SOUTh OF ENgLAND)
www.soem-pandi.com
Bulker
Passenger
Tanker
Brighton-based 53% Southern Seas changed 2% their name from Southern 15%
Seas (UK) Limited to Southern Seas (Europe) Limited in 2005.
The management behind Southern Seas created a separate
Reefer
mutual insurer, ‘The South of England Protection and Indemnity 1%
Association (Bermuda) Limited’ (South of England), which
commenced underwriting on 20 February 2004.
The South of England has now taken over day-to-day
underwriting of Southern Seas (Europe) (which is now limited
to simply a Lloyd’s facility providing specialist cover for tug and
barge operations and concessionaire’s liability etc).
The South of England is a mutual P&I Club which, unlike Barge
Livestock
most
1%
of the fixed premium 1% insurers mentioned earlier in this section,
can provide cover RORO for vessels in excess of General 10,000 Cargo GT. Their Container focus
is on vessels trading 1% internationally, but excluding 24% those ships 2%
with a predominantly US trading pattern or which are US flagged
and / or crewed.
The premium income for the 2008 policy year is expected to be in
excess of USD 45 million with approximately 750 vessels entered.
Almost 30 percent of the entered tonnage originates from
China. Other areas where the South of England is strong are
U.A.E. and Europe.
The South of England is able to offer limits up to USD 500 million,
using a reinsurance facility placed excess of USD 250,000, which is
almost entirely Lloyd’s security (a 6 percent line is placed with Arch
Re on an underlying USD 24,750,000 excess of USD 250,000 layer).
The South of England are able to provide Charterers cover although
this is normally reinsured 100 percent from the ground up.
The South of England Protection and Indemnity Association
(Bermuda) Limited is a mutual insurer unrated by any
international rating agency.

ChARTERERS
ONLY FACILITIES
The only remaining facility, other than the commercial subscription
markets, dedicated solely to charterer’s liability is the Charterers P&I
Club. This stand alone facility does not write any Owned vessel P&I,
but is included below for the sake of completeness.
ThE ChARTERERS P&I CLUB
www.else.co.uk
The Charterers P&I Club, established in 1986, offers Charterers’
liability and Charterers Freight Demurrage & Defence cover.
Originally run as a mutual, the Club demutualised in 1999 and
became a fixed premium provider working as an agency backed by
the security of underwriters at Lloyd’s. This underlying security
will change to Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC, a subsidiary of
Munich Re, with effect from 1 January 2009.
All claims handling and underwriting support is provided by
Michael Else and Co (the Managers of the Club), combining
internal expertise with a worldwide network of correspondents.
The Charterers’ Club can provide a limit of USD 2 million for
Freight Demurrage and Defence, while on the liability side their
standard maximum limit is USD 50 million, though they can
provide options to USD 300 million if required and subject to
certain underwriting Americas restrictions. Australasia Middle East/
3%
9%
India
Asia
10%
In the 35% 2006 policy year the Charterers’ Club’s gross premium
was approximately USD 23.2 million (combined Defence and
Liability Classes). The 2007 policy year saw this figure increase
to approximately USD 24.5 million. It is estimated that the 2008
gross premium will equal USD 28 million.
The Club currently insures around 200 clients, from liner operators
to trading houses, and anticipates further growth in 2009.
The Charterers’ Club are backed by Lloyd’s security which is
A+ rated by Standard and Poor’s. Munich Re is AA- rated by
Standard and Poor’s.
Europe
38%
Africa
5%
BY NATIONALITY OF MANAgEMENT
Asia
35%
Europe
38%
Americas
3%
BY vESSEL TYPE
Liner
25%
Australasia
9%
Other
2%
Middle East/
India
10%
Africa
5%
Tanker
5%
Bulkers
68%
Willis P&I Review 2008/09 | 9

CONTACTS
LONDON PLACINg TEAM
Ben Abraham
Executive Director
Email: abrahamb@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7786
Anna Brand
Technician
Email: Branda@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7704
Chris Chadwick
Account Handler
Email: chadwickc@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7787
Jacqui Coplen
Technician
Email: coplenj@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 8202
Spencer Crane
Account Handler
Email: cranes@willis.com
Direct line: +44 203124 7709
Eilert Eilertsen
Divisional Director
Email: Eilertsene@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 8009
Richard Furness
Executive Director
Email: furnessrd@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7612
LONDON CLAIMS TEAM
George H. McMenamin
Executive Director
Email: McMenamingh@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7419
Claire Barry
Email: Barryca@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 8638
Bradleigh-Aaron McArthur
Email: McArthurbr@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7713
92 | Willis P&I Review 2008/09
Ian M. Harris
Executive Director
Email: Harrisim@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7595
Paul D. Harrison
Account Handler
Email: Harrisonpd@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 8291
Kate Lowman
Senior Technician
Email: lowmankl@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7755
David Mahoney
Executive Director
Email: Mahoneydx@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7717
Katherine Parsons
Account Handler
Email: parsonskz@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7332
Rachel Sebborn
Divisional Director
Email: sebbornr@willis.com
Direct line: +44 20 3124 7718
Cathy Smith
Technician
Email: smithca@willis.com
Direct line: +44 203 124 7639

This Review is published for the benefit of clients and prospective clients of Willis. It is intended to highlight
general issues relating to the subject matter which may be of interest and does not necessarily deal with every
important subject nor cover every aspect of the subjects contained herein. If you intend to take any action or
make any decision on the basis of the content of this bulletin, you should first seek specific professional advice
and verify its content. Copyright Willis 2008. All rights reserved.

Willis Limited
Willis Marine
Contacts and Addresses:
The Willis Building
51 Lime Street
London EC3M 7DQ
Tel: +44 (0)20 3124 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 3124 8223
www.willis.com
Brian Fuller
One World Financial Center
200 Liberty Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10281-1003
Tel: +1 212 915 8888
Jim Currier
Suite 200, 505 Union Station
505 Fifth Avenue South
Seattle, Washington, 98104
Tel: +1 206 386 7400
Veit Metzroth
Suite 900, One Bush Street
San Francisco,
California, 94104
Tel: +1 415 981 1141
Jim DeLeeuw
43155 Main Street
Suite 2200B, Novi
Michigan, 48375
Tel: +1 248 735 7580
Bill Rose
11240 Waples Mill Road
Suite # 301, Fairfax,
Virginia, 22030
Tel: +1 703 591 0093
Willis Limited, Registered number: 181116 England and Wales.
Registered address: 51 Lime Street, London, EC3M 7DQ.
A Lloyd’s Broker. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
6928/12/08
Nigel Brunning
Suite 1600, The Poydras Center
650 Poydras Street, New Orleans
Louisiana, 70130
Tel: +1 504 581 6151
Lewis Hart
78 Shenton Way
# 23-02/03
Singapore, 079120
Tel: +65 6221 9877
Patrick Chow
3502 The Lee Gardens
33 Hysan Avenue
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 282 70111
Xiao-Jun Lin
10/F, UC Tower, 500 Fushan Road
Pudong New Area Shanghai
200122, China
Tel: +86 21 3887 9988
Claudio Brichetto
Piazza Dante, 7
Genova
Italy
Tel: +39 0105 46711