Citadel Insurance describes defamation claims unfounded

Citadel Insurance yesterday replied to claims of defamation made by Mark Randon and Shield Services Limited and claimed they were unfounded in fact and at law.

Citadel filed a counter-protest in the Civil Court and said the contractual relationship with Shield had been terminated in accordance with law. Consequently any notice published in the newspapers to give appropriate notice to the public about the termination of the contract and to protect policy holders was also in accordance with law.

No news about the legitimate termination of the contractual relationship between the parties could ever be considered defamatory, contrary to the allegations made by Shield and Randon and despite the fact that they had not substantiated the allegations.

It therefore followed that Citadel could not be blamed in any manner for the publication of the notice in accordance with law. On the contrary it was Shield and Randon who were trying to cause harm to Citadel and who were blurring the true issues between the parties.

Citadel denied it was trying to poach Shield's and Randon's clients by illicit means. Citadel had not communicated with any clients save for its own clients. All insurance contracts had been concluded between Citadel and the policy holders, all of whom were Citadel's clients. Once the contractual relationship between the parties, whereby Shield was Citadel's sub-agent, had been terminated, Shield could no longer be termed a sub-agent nor could it have its own clients. Still less could Shield expect to continue to offer insurance services to the public when it did not represent any insurance company.

Citadel added that Shield had never been authorised to bind Citadel in any way, but its only scope was that of introducing clients to Citadel Insurance. This was the specific function of an insurance sub-agent in terms of insurance law.

Dr Joe Borg Bartolo signed the reply.