The end of Names with unlimited liability will bring the downfall of Lloyd's, critics have warned.
Michael Deeny, chairman of the Association of Lloyd's Members (ALM) said recommendations to the Council of Lloyd's to stop 300 years of tradition would be contested strongly.
"We regret the proposals to consider abolishing unlimited liability," he said. "We will participate in the consultation process but we believe that the proposals that are against Names interests will not be followed through."
Deeny said he did not understand "the financial logic of an attack on Names who provide £3bn of capacity to the market" and added the recommendations made by consultants Bain & Co could destroy Lloyd's.
"It will damage the market to have limited liability," he said. "Lloyd's needs all the capital it can get at the present time."
Chatset editor Charles Sturge said policyholders would suffer if unlimited liability ceased.
"Lloyd's has never failed to say the policyholder is right and it does take away that important cornerstone of security. We know that corporate liability is not as good from past experience."
He said the proposals were "detrimental" to Lloyd's and "it is the end to Lloyd's as we know it".
Lloyd's Names Association chairman Christopher Stockwell added: "This is totally self-destructive. Corporate capital has proved itself fickle and has no fundamental need for Lloyd's."
