TMHCC TRI Claims Report APAC & EMEA 2023

Section 1. Introduction

Section 2. Notification trends

Section 3. Timing of notifications

Section 4. Deal size trends

Section 5. Key breach type trends

Section 6. Sector trends

Section 7. Claims outcomes

Section 8. Recommendations

Section 9. Claims case studies

Section 10. Conclusion

Section 11. Contact us

Transaction Risk Insurance at Tokio Marine HCC

Tokio Marine HCC (TMHCC), a member of the Tokio Marine Group, is a leading specialty insurance group conducting business in approximately 180 countries and underwriting more than 100 classes of specialty insurance.

We have one of the most established Transaction Risk Insurance (TRI) teams in the insurance market, offering W&I insurance since 2010.

We provide a global service for TRI from dedicated teams in Barcelona, London, Munich, New York,

Houston, Singapore and Sydney, and have a complete product offering and underwriting appetite across jurisdictions, industries, deal sizes and types of transactions.

We write policies in Europe, USA, Latin America and APAC directly – we do not outsource our underwriting to any MGAs or agencies.

Our team of underwriters come from insurance, financial, tax and legal backgrounds, and speak the local language of most of the territories

we underwrite, which allows us to take both a commercial and a practical approach when offering cover.

We have equally dedicated claims professionals with extensive experience in TRI claims. Our claims team works closely with our underwriters throughout the claims process and all our claims decisions are made on site.

Disclaimer on data presented

This report is based on the W&I claims data from TMHCC’s TRI business in the APAC and EMEA regions from 2013 to 2021. For the purposes of this report, data prior to 2013 has been disregarded as statistically insignificant. Data from 2020-2021 is included, however it should be noted that further claims could still be notified into these years, thus modifying some of the conclusions drawn. Data from 2022 has not been included as we still expect there to be material claims activity, which may change any conclusions drawn from 2022 data at present

While TMHCC has been underwriting policies in North America since 2017, we have not focussed on this region for the purpose of this report, given its more recent addition to the book. Finally, information contained in this report is presented on an ‘underwriting year’ basis unless otherwise specified.

Introduction

The last few years have been turbulent, with the impact of COVID, the war in Ukraine and the subsequent economic disruption impacting on numerous aspects of life. These events have also had a significant impact on the volatility of M&A deal volumes. After 2021’s record year, the c. 40% drop in volumes in 2022 to US $3.63 trillion was challenging1

Nevertheless, M&A insurance market capacity was able to meet these fluctuations, and insurance continues to play a key role in supporting the M&A market.

This report looks at how the TRI market is responding to W&I policy claims, looking at the type of claims notified, key sectors and how claims patterns are developing.

This report focuses on our W&I data from EMEA and APAC to provide insight into how this class of insurance supports claims within the M&A sector. As the W&I insurance market continues to develop and insurer experience expands, we will continue to build on our W&I claims data to help provide a clear view of the performance of this increasingly vital component of the global M&A marketplace.

1 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-with-no-q4-surge-2022-m-a-activity-limped-to-a-close

Adrià Vàzquez Head of Transaction Risk Insurance – International Tokio Marine HCC

“When you work with us, you are working directly with the risk carrier. This adds an additional level of certainty when navigating complex situations, such as the potential resolution of a claim. Moreover, our long-term vision and solid business relationships allow our clients to proceed confidently with their M&A deals. While the world navigates through turbulent waters, we are optimistic about the future of M&A and TRI, and are fully committed to supporting you in growing and protecting your business.”

Notification trends

In line with the W&I insurance market, the number of policies we have issued since 2010 has experienced enormous growth. Likewise, the number of notifications we have received per calendar year has proportionally increased. Changes in this trend over the last two years can largely be attributed to the global pandemic.

Our average notification rate (the proportion of policies issued that have attracted one or more claim notification), at 16%, is in line with our understanding of the current M&A insurance market average.

While this report mainly focuses on claims activity per underwriting year, the above graph is presented on a calendar year basis to show the evolution in the number of claims received over the years. The 36% decrease in notifications for the last two years (when compared to 2019) was initially an unexpected change. However, on reflection, it is likely that, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies have been more focused on internal stability and less on post-purchase audits. We will monitor this trend with interest over the coming years.

Distribution of notifications by calendar year (2013 - 2021)

Historically, we have received a larger volume of notifications in EMEA than in APAC, which is partially reflective of the distribution of our M&A book between these regions.

The notification rate for 2021 policies for APAC and EMEA has evened out to 13%.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

53%

75% 55% 53%

statistics for notifications made after three years (discussed further below) suggest that it is unlikely to diverge significantly from the W&I market average. 45% 47% 21%

Regional split by underwriting year (2013-2021) APAC EMEA

Notification per breach type

In APAC, tax is the most frequently notified breach type, closely followed by accounts. In EMEA, the same trend has been identified, although in EMEA tax makes up 37% vs 25% in APAC. This is consistent with the common perception that certain European tax authorities enforce tax compliance proactively, often by way of annual tax audits.

Unsurprisingly, most notifications we receive for property breaches are made under real estate policies. Of the real estate deals we have written, around 75% have been in EMEA.

79% 64% 53%

36% 47% 17%

36%

90% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

83% 64% 0%

47% 53% Accounts A PA C E MEA Breach type by region Contracts 44% 56% 14% 86% Property 28% 72% Tax 37% 63% Other*

* ’Other’ - as used throughout this report, this category comprises 8 statistically less relevant breach types

Timing of notifications

Consistent with the timing of postacquisition audits, most notifications under our policies are received within one year of inception. These notifications have been increasing. On average, between 2013 and 2019, this proportion was 50%; in 2020, it was 67%; and, for 2021, it currently stands at 86%.

While we expect the percentages for these latter years to reduce (due to, for example, tax notifications, which are typically made more than one year after inception), we do not expect any such reduction to be significant. This trend is in line with the general dynamics of the market: as the use of and familiarity with

W&I insurance increases, insureds and their M&A teams are naturally becoming quicker at reporting issues.

Timing of notifications by underwriting year (2013-2021)

Following the gradual shift in the market towards a 3-year policy period for general warranty breaches, we are closely monitoring the impact of this on the timing of notifications.

Timing and breach type

As shown in the graph, contracts and property warranty breaches are more likely to be notified within one year of inception.

Within our “other” category, claims that were notified more than one year after inception included breaches of litigation and compliance warranties.

Notifications of tax and accounts breaches are more evenly distributed across the relevant years.

Timing and deal size

For deals of less than USD 250m EV, the majority of notifications are received within one year of inception.

In contrast, the larger the deal, the greater the delay in notification. For deals of between USD 250m and USD 1bn, 42% of notifications were received within one year of inception and, for deals of over USD 1bn, the figure was 36%.

We consider there to be three key reasons for the correlation between larger deal sizes and later notifications.

Timing of notifications by breach type (2013 - 2021)

Firstly, larger deals are more prone to anti-trust scrutiny or foreign investment oversight, resulting in completion taking longer and therefore pushing notifications into the later years.

Secondly, post-purchase audits for larger deals generally take longer to complete than for smaller deals.

Finally, our data shows that larger, more complex deals are more likely to attract more tax breach notifications than other types of breach notifications, which can be made up to seven years after inception.

Timing and severity

Our data shows that most of our claims with an incurred loss are received within two years of policy inception, regardless of their severity. For claims that have an incurred loss of over USD 1m, this trend is more pronounced, with 86% received within two years. With tax breaches making up most of our claims made after two years, the above trend comes as no surprise, as tax breaches have historically been less severe in nature.

Deal size trends

As shown in the graph, larger deals tend to have a higher notification rate. This is consistent with our understanding of the general market position. Together with increased risk concentration, this is one of the reasons why larger deals tend to attract higher premium rates.

For deals of under USD 500m, 94% of our book is primary, whereas for deals of over USD 500m, only 22% is primary.

Unsurprisingly, as we bind more primary policies in the under USD 500m category, 84% of all

notifications we receive are for such deals. As we have written fewer primary policies for larger deals, the notifications we receive for them make up a smaller percentage of the total.

Notification rate by deal size (2013 - 2021)

Payments and deal size

Over the years, we have consistently paid a broad mix of claims of all sizes, from minor to multimilliondollar losses.

As previously mentioned, most of the primary business we have written is for deals of less than USD 500m, therefore, most of the claims for which we have incurred a loss relate to such deals.

As an excess layer insurer, we have mainly received claims for relatively severe losses. While such claims do not account for all our larger losses, they have had some impact in this regard.

Focus on severity

Notifications by deal size (2013 - 2021)

<USD 50m

Claims severity has historically been greater in EMEA than in APAC. In EMEA, 14% of claims for which we have incurred a loss were for over USD 5m. In APAC, although claims have been less severe, they have been more frequent.

Despite these differences, the larger claims we have received have led to pay-outs totalling tens of millions to our insureds in both regions.

Key breach type trends

Notifications we have received have concerned a broad mix of breach types. Below, we set out some of the more interesting trends.

Tax

Extracting meaningful trends for tax breaches has proven challenging for two reasons. Firstly, while the number of notifications has increased, this is directly connected to the increased volume of policies placed. Secondly, we are aware that the number of notifications received since 2018 is not yet mature, given the seven-year period allowed for them. Despite these challenges, we have identified the following trends.

Tax breaches account for 33% of all notifications we receive and they are our most frequently notified breach type. While the volume of such notifications has increased substantially, tax breaches only account for 17% of the claims for which we have incurred a loss. In line with the rest of the market, these are usually uncontentious, low severity and resolved quickly.

Larger targets tend to have more complex tax arrangements and are hence subject to greater scrutiny by tax authorities. In addition, larger targets are often more dispersed geographically and, therefore, have to deal with tax authorities in a variety of different jurisdictions. This, in turn, leads to larger deals receiving more tax breaches than any other type of breach.

Data for notifications for 2020 and 2021 shows a significant drop in the number of tax notifications compared with the number received pre-pandemic. It remains too early to say whether this drop will be sustained. If it were, it would represent a reversal of the longstanding trend of increasing tax notifications and, as such, would be highly significant.

It may be that the usual pattern of such notifications has been disrupted, at least temporarily, due to in-person tax audits and investigations being postponed or cancelled for reasons related to Covid. If so, it is likely that we shall see an up-tick in tax breach notifications once three or more years have passed since these policies incepted. This is an area we shall be monitoring with interest.

Distribution of incurred loss vs notifications by breach type (2013 - 2021)

Accounts

Accounts breaches are the next most frequently notified breach type, representing 17% of all notifications across APAC and EMEA. These notifications have also increased markedly, albeit not as much as tax breach notifications.

In line with the market, accounts breach notifications are on average more severe than any other category of notifications we receive. Accounts breaches represent 41% of all claims payments we have made: of these, nearly half have been for multimillion-dollar losses. As a proportion of the notifications we receive, no other type generates so many multimillion-dollar payments.

Contracts

Contract breaches make up 11% of notifications to us across APAC and EMEA.

While in APAC they make up only 13% of total notifications, quantum tends to be higher, with all incurring multimillion-dollar payments. In contrast, the number and severity of EMEA claims have been markedly lower. These make up only 10% of notifications, of which none has attracted a multimillion-dollar payment.

Property

Property is one of the most mature sectors of the M&A insurance market.

Our figures show that property breaches only represent 7% of notifications to us and, predictably, mainly relate to real estate deals.

Property claims have not, on the whole, been severe: they represent only 10% of our claims with an incurred loss, of which only a small number have incurred a multimilliondollar loss.

Other

Our other section is made up of 8 of our less common breach types. While we still pay claims under this category of breaches, it is noticeable that the loss incurred is less than the proportion of notifications made.

Notification by breach type in APAC and EMEA

Sector trends

Manufacturing

Our largest sector by number of policies written is manufacturing. The notification rate for this sector, at 20%, is one of the highest. While these claims frequently attract indemnity payments, they are generally not high severity. The pattern for the construction industry is similar, in that the notification rate is higher-thanaverage but low severity.

Tourism

Tourism is another small part of our book. It tends to attract tax, accounts and contracts breaches.

Energy

Of the sectors that generate higher value claims, energy is noteworthy. While the notification rate, at 17%, is close to the global market average, claims in this sector make up only a small proportion of our book yet represent 7% of our more severe losses.

IT, surprisingly, attracts more accounts breaches than contracts or compliance breaches, which goes against the common market perception of the risk profile.

Education

Compliance breaches represent only a small proportion of our claims notifications. We have seen them occur more often in the education sector.

As energy becomes increasingly subject to new regulatory and governance requirements, we shall monitor its impact on the incidence and severity of claims.

Energy attracts a higher proportion of tax breach notifications than any other breach type but is only the third largest source of all such notifications to us.

Claims outcomes

Since issuing the first W&I policy in 2010, we have paid tens of millions of dollars in claims, of which the largest single settlement was just under USD 10m.

In our 13 years of experience, most claims have been resolved swiftly. When claims have taken longer to resolve, the following factors have been relevant:

• Similar to claims under an SPA, insurers, when dealing with a claim under the policy, usually need further information before cover can be assessed.

• It can take time for the client to gather subsequent information for a variety of reasons. For example, it may not be the client’s business priority, or the information may not be available (i.e. due to ongoing litigation). In our experience, such delays can last for up to two years.

• When a claim under the policy relates to litigation against the target, it is usually not possible to resolve the policy claim until the litigation has been resolved.

• If the loss calculation is based on diminution in value, quantifying this

often requires expert accounting advice. We have learnt that a collaborative approach ensures a quicker resolution of the claim.

Of the claims that we are able to resolve more quickly, most relate to tax breaches, the quantum of which will often be known at an early stage.

TMHCC has declined cover outright for only 7% of claims received, mainly on the basis that a policy exclusion applies.

The policy exclusions that we have applied most frequently are disclosure, specific indemnity, tax relief, condition of property or assets and transfer pricing exclusions.

In most such cases, our coverage determination was accepted by the insured. However, even when there has been disagreement, we have generally been able to resolve matters amicably, without the need for coverage litigation.

Selected claims OVER USD 1M

MANUFACTURING

Region: EMEA (UK)

Breach: Financial Statements

Breach detail: Underprovisioning for finished goods and early release of stock provision

TOURISM

Region: EMEA (Italy)

Breach: Financial Statements

Breach detail: Overstatement of good will and Seller fraud

REAL ESTATE

Region: EMEA (Italy)

Breach: Property

Breach detail: Building regulations breaches

COURIER SERVICES

Region: EMEA (France)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Alleged errors in intercompany accounts

IT

Region: EMEA (UK)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Inaccurate tracking of profitability of contracts

CONSTRUCTION

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Capitalisation of expenses and inaccurate accruals for wages

LOGISTICS

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Late recognition of expenses

CONSTRUCTION

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Accounting inaccuracies for major project labour costs and capitalising of expenses

LOGISTICS

Region: APAC (New Zealand)

Breach: Contracts

Breach detail: Intention to terminate major customer contract

MANUFACTURING

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: Employment

Breach detail: Failure to comply with enterprise awards

Selected claims UNDER USD 1M

MANUFACTURING

Region: EMEA (Germany)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Fraudulent accounting

REAL ESTATE

Region: EMEA (Sweden)

Breach: Disclosure

Breach detail: Shortfall in payments due under contract

Region: EMEA (UK)

Breach: Contracts

Breach detail: Undisclosed interest of the Target’s shares by a group company

MANUFACTURING

Region: APAC (New Zealand)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Overstatement of WIP and understatement of costs of goods supplied

EDUCATION

Region: EMEA (UK)

Breach: Property

Breach detail: Undisclosed delapidation liability

ENERGY

Region: EMEA (Spain)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Failure to pay required toll

MANUFACTURING

Region: EMEA (Germany)

Breach: Compliance

Breach detail: Non-compliance with pharmaceutical manufacturing permits

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: Accounts

Breach detail: Failure to prepare management accounts as agreed

Region: APAC (Australia)

Breach: IP

Breach detail: Failure to pay software licenses

TOURISM

Region: APAC (Singapore)

Breach: Tax

Breach detail: Overstatement of entitle to foreign tax credits

Recommendations

When to notify

Make sure notification is made as soon as possible.

Put insurers on notice even if full details are not known yet – it is always better to notify “too early” than to notify “too late”.

What to notify

To help speed up the claims process, set out as fully as possible in the initial notification the background to and details of the relevant warranty breaches. Being as forthcoming as possible in this way from the outset will help to keep the need for further requests for information (RFI) to a minimum.

Failing to include sufficient information will not usually invalidate the notification but may lengthen the claim’s lifespan.

Keep responses to RFIs proportionate and relevant.

Collaboration

Be open to dialogue between insured and insurer from an early stage.

Involve the broker - most brokers have specialised sophisticated local teams who can help to facilitate the smooth flow of information and ensure that misunderstandings do not arise on either side.

Our claims team is experienced and multi-jurisdictional and is able to deal with most issues in-house.

W&I claims are, by their nature, often technical, concerning, for example, accounts, tax and compliance issues. On these, we may need to seek expert advice. Do not be alarmed by this, we appoint them to ensure that the right questions are being asked from the outset.

Claims case studies

R&D tax challenge

The target, an engineering and construction group, prepared tax declarations for a number of financial years prior to deal completion on the understanding that it was eligible for off-sets for R&D expenditure. Following completion, this understanding was challenged by the local tax authority. The insured considered that, if upheld, this challenge would imply a breach by the sellers of various tax warranties and on this basis notified this matter under the policy.

The target did not agree with the tax authority´s assessment and, with TMHCC´s consent, sought to challenge it. Following negotiations, the insured reached agreement with the local tax authority and sought indemnity under the policy from TMHCC for the tax liability (which, although reduced, remained substantial) and the legal costs incurred in the course of disputing the tax authority´s initial assessment. We accepted that the claim fell for cover under the policy and agreed to indemnify the insured in respect of its loss net of the applicable retention.

Pay award dispute

The target, a retail company, was approached by a number of ex-employees and their union representatives regarding alleged failures to meet pay awards in full. Following investigation and after obtaining legal advice, the insured buyer concluded that there had indeed been such underpayments. The insured notified the matter to TMHCC on the basis that the underpayments amounted to breaches of employment, tax and liability warranties. Following further investigation, the insured identified a large number of further employees who had been similarly underpaid during the previous six years (the limitation period for claims against the target in respect of such underpayments). These underpayments had also resulted in superannuation, payroll tax and work cover premium underpayments.

The heads of loss in respect of which the insured sought indemnity included the target´s liability for the above underpayments that occurred prior to deal completion; and a separate diminution in value (¨DIV¨) loss that the insured considered it had

suffered due to employee and related costs of running the target business post-completion being greater than was warranted.

We accepted that one or more of the warranties identified by the insured had been breached and that the heads of loss referred to above were potentially covered.

The exercise of calculating the quantum of the pre-completion underpayments element of the loss was complicated by, in some cases, the requirement to make certain assumptions on the basis of incomplete records. However, we were able to adopt a pragmatic approach, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays.

The calculation of the DIV element of the loss involved assumptions regarding the EBITDA multiple that was appropriate for calculating the value of the business at completion.

Both the Insured and TMHCC retained expert accountants to advise on these issues. Following correspondence and other exchanges of views between the parties involved, we were able to agree on a mutually acceptable multimillion-dollar settlement sum.

M&A insurance continues to both grow and mature, and a key indicator of this is the rise in the number of claim notices and settlements during the period of our report.

Our experience has shown that M&A claims settlements are becoming more efficient and effective as insurers, clients and their brokers become more familiar

with the process. This has been greatly assisted by the increasing specialisation and professionalism of insurer and broker M&A claims teams.

One of the key lessons we have learnt for this class of insurance is that collaboration with clients and brokers is key to achieving the best result for all parties as quickly as possible.

“TMHCC’s experience of writing Transaction Risk Insurance and handling W&I claims dates back to when the product was in its early stages of development. Since then, we have built up considerable W&I claims handling expertise and a clear track record of significant claims payments. We also now have a large volume of claims data, from which we can discern clear trends, as set out in our first TRI claims report. Overall, the picture that emerges is that W&I insurance has steadily grown into a key feature of the M&A landscape and that, when things go wrong, policies respond. We shall continue to play our part in ensuring this continues, and look forward to sharing our experience and insights in the future.”

Tokio Marine HCC is proud to be part of this class of insurance and pleased to provide support to our clients when they need their policy to respond. Having paid out tens of millions of dollars in TRI claims across APAC and EMEA, we stand by our commitments to our insureds and work closely together to swiftly reach the best solution.

Carlos Fane Claims Manager Financial Lines & Transaction Risk Tokio Marine HCC

Contact us

Underwriting Leadership – International TRI Claims Leaders

Adrià Vázquez

Head of TRI - International avazquez@tmhcc.com

Barcelona, Spain

Laura Román TRI Underwriting Manager lroman@tmhcc.com

Barcelona, Spain

Birgit Rummel TRI Manager - DACH & CEE brummel@tmhcc.com

Munich, Germany

Miguel Hernandez TRI Manager - Southern Europe mahernandez@tmhcc.com

Barcelona, Spain

Nuala Read TRI Manager - UK nread@tmhcc.com

London, UK

Thomas Burke TRI Manager - APAC tburke@tmhcc.com

Sydney, Australia

Underwriting Leadership – North America

Shane de Burca

Head of TRI - North America sdeburca@tmhcc.com New York, USA

A.J. Kritzman TRI Underwriting Manager akritzman@tmhcc.com

New York, USA

Carlos Fane Claims Manager - FL & TRI cfane@tmhcc.com

Barcelona, Spain

Naomi Barnes TRI Claims Lead nbarnes@tmhcc.com

Barcelona, Spain

Our team locations

Barcelona

Torre Diagonal Mar, Josep Pla 2, Planta 10 08019 Barcelona

Spain

London Fitzwilliam House, 10 St. Mary Axe

London EC3A 8BF United Kingdom

Munich

Rindermarkt 16 80331 Munich Germany

New York

600 Lexington Ave, 22nd Floor New York, 10022 USA

Houston 13403 Northwest Fwy Houston, 77040 USA

Singapore 20 McCallum St. #13,01, Tokio Marine Centre

Singapore, 069046

Singapore

Sydney Level 3/1 Chifley

Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia

About Tokio Marine HCC

Tokio Marine HCC is comprised of highly entrepreneurial teams with the expertise to underwrite more than 100 classes of specialty insurance in more than 180 countries.

Tokio Marine HCC is a member of the Tokio Marine Group, a premier global company founded in 1879 with a market capitalization of $38 billion*. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Tokio Marine HCC is a leading specialty insurance group with offices in the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Continental Europe.

Tokio Marine HCC’s major domestic insurance companies have financial strength ratings of ‘A+’ (Strong) from S&P Global Ratings, ‘A++’ (Superior) from A.M. Best, and ‘AA-’ (Very Strong) from Fitch Ratings; its major international insurance companies have financial strength ratings of ‘A+’ (Strong) from S&P Global Ratings. For more information about Tokio Marine HCC, please visit www.tmhcc.com.

* as of 31/03/2023

Contact Us

Barcelona

Tokio Marine Europe - Spanish Branch Torre Diagonal Mar

Josep Pla 2, Planta 10 08019 Barcelona, Spain

Tel: +34 93 530 7300

Fax: +34 93 530 7301

London

HCC International Fitzwilliam House, 10 St. Mary Axe London EC3A 8BF, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7648 1300

Fax: +44 (0)20 7648 1301

Lloyd’s Box 252, Second Floor

A member of the Tokio Marine HCC group of companies

Munich

Tokio Marine Europe - German Branch Rindermarkt,16 80331 Munich Germany Tel: +49 89 3803 4640

Tokio Marine HCC is a trading name of HCC International Insurance Company plc (HCCII), Tokio Marine Europe S.A. (TME) and HCC Underwriting Agency Ltd (HCCUA), members of the Tokio Marine HCC Group of Companies.

HCCII is authorised by the UK Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority (No. 202655). Registered with Companies House of England and Wales No. 01575839. Registered office at 1 Aldgate, London EC3N 1 RE, UK. TME is authorised by the Luxembourg Minister of Finance and regulated by the Commissariat aux Assurances (CAA); registered with the Registre de commerce et des sociétés, Luxembourg No. B221975 at 33, Rue Sainte Zithe, L-2763, Luxembourg; Operating through its Spanish Branch, domiciled at Torre Diagonal Mar, Josep Pla 2, planta 10, 08019 Barcelona, Spain, registered with the Registro de Entidades Aseguradoras de la Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones under the code E0236, VAT number in Spain (“N.I.F”) W0186736-E, registered with the Registro Mercantil de Barcelona, at volume 46.667, page 30, sheet number B-527127, registration entry 1; and through its German Branch, domiciled at Berliner Allee 26, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany, registered with the Handelsregister beim Amtsgericht Düsseldorf under the number HRB 84822, authorised by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) under the number 5217. VAT ID No: DE320932530. We have authority to enter into contracts of insurance on behalf of the Lloyd’s underwriting members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 4141 which is managed by HCCUA.

The policyholder will always be informed of which insurer in our group will underwrite the policy according to jurisdiction.

Not all coverages or products may be available in all jurisdictions. The description of coverage in these pages is for information purposes only. Actual coverages will vary based on local law requirements and the terms and conditions of the policy issued. The information described herein does not amend, or otherwise affect, the terms and conditions of any insurance policy issued by Tokio Marine HCC Group of Companies. In the event that a policy is inconsistent with the information described herein, the language of the policy will take precedence.

Outside the EEA, the Policyholder is also able to enter into contracts of insurance through the Lloyd’s underwriting members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 4141, managed by HCC Underwriting Agency Ltd. As such, the policyholder will always be informed of which insurer in our group will underwrite the policy in these jurisdictions..