swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Insurance - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Â
 Apostolos Konstantine Ventouris -v- Trevor Rex Mountain, The Italia Express No 2; QBD 1992 - [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 281
Â
Bank of Nova Scotia -v- Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) [1992] 1 AC 233
1992
HL
Lord Goff
Insurance
The effect of breach of an insurance warranty is automatic, rather than dependant on any acceptance or election.
Lord Goff said: "So it is laid down in section 33(3) that, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty. Those words are clear. They show that discharge of the insurer from liability is automatic and is not dependent upon any decision by the insurer to treat the contract or the insurance as at an end; though, under section 34(3), the insurer may waive the breach of warranty.
Section 33(3) of the Act reflects what has been described, in successive editions of Chalmers, The Marine Insurance Act 1906, as the inveterate practice in marine insurance of using the term "warranty" as signifying a condition precedent." Lord Goff referred to Thomson -v- Weems and said "Once this is appreciated, it becomes readily understandable that, if a promissory warranty is not complied with, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of breach of warranty, for the simple reason that fulfilment of the warranty is a condition precedent to the liability of the insurer…In the case of conditions precedent, the word "condition" is being used in its classical sense in English law, under which the coming into existence of (for example) an obligation, or the duty or further duty to perform an obligation, is dependent upon the fulfilment of the specified condition. Here, where we are concerned with a promissory warranty, i.e. a promissory condition precedent, contained in an existing contract of insurance, non-fulfilment of the condition does not prevent the contract from coming into existence. What it does (as section 33(3) makes plain) is to discharge the insurer from liability as from the date of the breach. Certainly, it does not have the effect of discharging the contract ab initio. Nor, strictly speaking, does it have the effect of bringing the contract to an end. It is possible that there may be obligations of the assured under the contract which will survive the discharge of the insurer from liability, as for example a continuing liability to pay premium. Even if in the result no further obligations rest on either party, it is not correct to speak of the contract being avoided; and it is, strictly speaking, more accurate to keep to the carefully chosen words in section 33(3) of the Act, rather than to speak of the contract being brought to an end, though that may be the practical effect. When, as section 34(3) contemplates, the insurer waives a breach of a promissory warranty, the effect is that, to the extent of the waiver, the insurer cannot rely upon the breach as having discharged him from liability. This is a very different thing from saying that discharge of the insurer from liability is dependent upon a decision by the insurer.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
The Moonacre [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 501
1992
Mr A. D. Colman QC
Insurance, Transport
S, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. The boat was destroyed by a fire. The insurers argued that S had no insurable interest in the vessel, albeit by agreement with R he was entitled to exclusive use and control of the vessel. This agreement enabled the Judge to distinguish Macaura because S had an insurable interest in the vessel as he would benefit from its preservation and suffer loss of a valuable benefit if it were lost or destroyed. There was no third category of contracts of insurance which were not wagering contracts but were unenforceable for want of an insurable interest. The 1906 Act expressly provides that an interest at the time of loss is necessary but not at the time the insurance is effected (section 6).
Marine Insurance Act 1906 6
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
New England Reinsurance Corporation -v- Messoghios Insurance Co [1992] 2 Lloyds LR 251
1992
Insurance, Contract
Where, on the face of the documents the parties contemplate that, before being bound by a contract, they will execute a written contract the terms of which require careful negotiation, there is a distinction between a party who indicates his agreement to the wording to be contained in the contract and his assent to be bound by the contract itself once drawn up and executed.
1 Citers
Â
Smit Tak Offshore Services and Others -v- Youell and Others Gazette, 15 January 1992
15 Jan 1992
CA
Insurance, Transport
A marine insurance policy did not cover the cost of compliance with an unlawful threat from the state of Dubai to revoke a licence if a wreck was not removed. The threat did not create a legal responsibility covered by the insurance. An umbrella policy designed to cover risks not otherwise insured against, could not thereby be expected to cover all other risks.
Â
Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd -v- Drake Insurance Co Ltd Gazette, 15 January 1992; [1992] QB 887; [1992] 2 WLR 157
15 Jan 1992
CA
Insurance
An insurance company, having paid under the policy to a doubly insured party, sought contribution from the second insurer, who had not been notified of the claim by the insured. The claim for a contribution was one in equity, but since the company had paid in excess of their true liability, because of a 'ratable proportion' clause, they were not entitled to recover any part of the voluntary payment. The matter should be looked at at the time of the loss before there was any non-compliance with the condition precedent.
1 Citers
Â
Verderame -v- Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc [1992] BCLC 793; Times, 02 April 1992
2 Apr 1992
CA
Balcombe LJ
Agency, Insurance, Company, Contract, Negligence, Damages
The insurance brokers, acting to arrange insurance for a small private limited company did not owe a duty in tort to the directors of that company personally. Where an action was brought in a tort and in breach of contract, damages could not be awarded on the tort where they were not available in contract.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Touche Ross & Co and Others -v- Baker; HL 22-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 22 July 1992
Â
 Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association -v- Chrismas ('The Kyriaki'); QBD 26-Aug-1992 - [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 137; Times, 26 August 1992
Â
Napier & Ettrick -v- R F Kershaw Gazette, 09 September 1992
9 Sep 1992
CA
Insurance, Legal Professions
Money held by solicitors for names was subject to subrogation for insurers.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
