Lloyd's Slapped With Slavery Suit

By Michael Ha

NU Online News Service, March 30, 4:24 p.m.EST?Lloyd's of London, along with two other U.S.corporations, was slapped with a $2 billion lawsuit for profitingfrom the slave trade.[@@]

The suit, filed by six adults and two children who aredescendants of African-American slaves, in Manhattan Federal Courtin New York, seeks $2 billion in punitive damages and unspecifiedactual damages from Lloyd's, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings andFleetBoston Financial Corporation.

The suit, filed Monday, alleges that Lloyd's benefited from theslave trade by insuring slave ships, while FleetBoston had financedthe ships and R.J. Reynolds had profited from plantations usingslave labor.

The complaint notes that over 8 million "Africans and theirdescendants were enslaved in the United States from 1619 to 1865,"and that the practice of slavery constituted an "immoral andinhumane deprivation of Africans' life, liberty, Africancitizenship rights, cultural heritage." It further deprived theslaves of the fruits of their own labor.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Edward Fagan, is well known forrepresenting various victim groups in reparation cases. In 1998, hesucceeded in forcing Swiss-based banks into a ?685 million ($1.25billion) settlement on behalf of victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Fagan, whose office is located in Livingston, N.J., was notimmediately available for comment.

In a response to the accusation, Lloyd's spokesperson CarolineHowe told National Underwriter, "We completely reject theallegations being made."

Ms. Howe noted that Lloyd's has not been served with any papersyet, "but from what's been said it seems that this complaint isbased on the same factual allegations as the case that was recentlyrejected in Chicago."

The case referenced by Lloyd's involved a similar lawsuit filedon behalf of descendants of slaves, against corporations includingAetna Insurance and Lehman Brothers brokerage firm and R.J.Reynolds. That lawsuit, which was first filed in U.S. DistrictCourt in New York in 2002 and later moved to Chicago, was dismissedby a federal judge this past January.

In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle observed thatplaintiffs' claims are "beyond the constitutional authority of thiscourt" and that the suit failed to establish any specific, tangibleconnection between the plaintiffs and the companies named asdefendants. However, Judge Norgle dismissed the case "withoutprejudice," which would allow future potential plaintiffs seekingreparations from U.S. companies to file an amended complaint.