1.  Can you confirm that LMA3333 does not need to be used on MRC (BA)?
The LMA3333 should not be used on MRC(BA); the several liability language in the model agreement should be used. However, it is vital that the correct several liability clause is included on the declarations or certificates (for details of which see Lloyd's Bulletin Y4133 of 11 March). Where a risk is written partly off a binding authority & partly with open-market lines then see Question 2..
     
2. What several liability language should we use when we are placing a risk partly with binder(s) on a prior submit basis and partly with open-market lines?
  In this case it is important that separate evidence of cover is issued to the policyholder for the proportion placed under the binding authority and the proportion placed on an open market basis. A certificate may be issued by the coverholder but only in respect of that part of the risk placed via the binder (whether or not on a prior submit basis). That certificate should include the appropriate several liability clause (i.e. either LMA 5096 or LSW 1001 as appropriate). The proportion placed on an open market basis may be evidenced by the relevant MRC or another acceptable form of evidence of cover, either of which should contain LMA 3333, If the proportion being placed under the binding authority is being placed with underwriters on a prior submit basis, the broker should ensure that the declaration clearly shows which part is being insured on an open market basis and which under the binding authority. Brokers may find it easier to use separate submissions and/or separate security pages in order to achieve this.

3.  Section 4.1 of MRC (BA) says that each section should be page numbered separately. This is inconsistent with the approach on other MRC standards. Is this correct?  
The separate page numbering of sections within a Binder has been a requirement for some time and has not been newly introduced within MRC (BA). It was introduced so that brokers could remove some sections from the portion of the contract sent to the Coverholder (e.g. Subscription Agreement).   

4.  I currently use a honeycomb as a header sheet when seeking agreement to premium bordereaux relating to a binder. Can I now use an MRCE for this purpose?    
Yes. Whilst this is not strictly an endorsement, an MRCE-style form can be used for this purpose.
  
5.  MRC suggests that I need to retain the same UMR even where we have taken over business from another broker. Is this right?
Yes. The UMR is intended to be a unique reference that stays the same for the life of the contract.
 
Back to Lineslip