(Re)insurance – The ABCs of SPCs

Published: 26 Apr 2023
Type: Insight

Segregated portfolio companies (SPCs) are frequently used in Cayman Islands (re)insurance structures.  The defining feature of an SPC is that it offers statutory segregation of assets and liabilities obviating the need for contractual segregation.

This insight provides a high- level overview of the legal characteristics of an SPC and considers why these structures continue to be popular in the Cayman Islands (re)insurance space in particular.


What is an SPC?

An SPC is a single legal entity, with one board of directors, that can establish internal segregated portfolios.  Each segregated portfolio’s assets and liabilities are legally separated from the assets and liabilities of the company’s ordinary account (called its “general assets”) and are also separate from any assets and liabilities attributed to the SPCs other segregated portfolios (if any).

A creditor entering into contractual dealings with a particular segregated portfolio will have restricted recourse; meaning it will only be entitled to make its recovery against assets attributed and credited to the specific segregated portfolio to which the contract is also attributed. That creditor will not be legally entitled to make recovery against assets attributed and credited to other segregated portfolios of the SPC, or (save to the extent otherwise provided in any relevant contract or the memorandum of association and articles of association of the SPC) against the general assets of the SPC.

Entry into contracts and PICs

Cayman Islands law provides that any act, matter, deed, agreement, contract, instrument under seal or other instrument or arrangement which is to be binding on an SPC must be executed by the SPC for and on behalf of the relevant segregated portfolio.

Given an SPC is a single legal entity, irrespective of the number of portfolios that it establishes, segregated portfolios are unable to contract with each other. In light of this, Cayman Islands law provides that a licensed (re)insurance company established as an SPC can establish, for the account of a particular segregated portfolio, a “portfolio insurance company” being a subsidiary in the form of an exempted company limited by shares (PIC).  That PIC is then permitted to undertake (re)insurance business without its own insurance licence, effectively piggy backing off the insurance licence of the SPC.  Furthermore, a PIC, which has its own board of directors and its own legal personality, can enter into contracts with any person including (a) the SPC acting on its own account, (b) the SPC acting on behalf of any of its segregated portfolios or (c) another PIC.

SPCs in the (re)insurance space

SPCs can be used for a variety of purposes including reinsurance vehicles, life and annuity companies, transformer vehicles, securitisation and derivatives structures, as well as special purpose vehicles.

SPCs are also frequently used to set up rent-a-captive structures. Rent-a-captives that take the form of SPCs allow a company that does not wish to establish its own captive to “rent” a portfolio from an established captive. The benefits of this approach (in comparison to a company establishing its own captive) include that (a) the operator of the existing captive is likely to have greater experience in managing the captive and (b) the costs of administering the existing captive are likely to be significantly less than those of a new captive due to economies of scale.

Conclusion

SPCs represent a major opportunity for international businesses, particularly in (re)insurance industry, to avail themselves of a structure that allows for cost effective and efficient segregation of assets and liabilities within a single legal entity. In the third quarter of 2022 the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority reported a total of 149 licensed international insurance companies that were registered as SPCs. These SPCs had total premiums of circa US$2.7bn with total assets valued at just under circa US$ 11bn. The success of the Cayman Islands in the (re)insurance space can be attributed to a number of factors, not least a flexible, modern and sensible regulatory regime for (re)insurance companies generally and captives in particular.

For more specific advice on establishing a (re)insurance structure in the Cayman Islands, we invite you to contact one of the members of our market leading (re)insurance team.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.