The plaintiff had been injured, losing a finger, playing football whilst in the forces. He was unable to continue his profession within the army, and claimed under his insurance against loss of employment through permanent disablement. The insurers responded that he was able to do other work.
Held: An unclear provision in a consumer insurance contract is to be construed broadly. ‘A broader approach to the construction of a provision in a commercial document, such as this policy, is appropriate, embracing consideration of the policy as a whole, its context, scheme and the surrounding circumstances. That approach should help to bring into sharper focus the object and purpose of the provisions which lack linguistic clarity.’ Applying such a reading, the policy was construed to read that ‘any occupation’ in this context meant within the Armed Forces, and accordingly the appeal succeeded, and the benefit was payable.
Judges:
Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mummery
Citations:
Times 25-Apr-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1414
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sherwood v Cox CA 1945
The respondent had been accused of selling milk not of the nature, substance and quality demanded, in that it was deficient in milk fat. The justices found facts proved as admitted: ‘When the summons was served on the respondent on August 14, 1944, . .
Cited – Pocock v Century Insurance Co Ltd 1960
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Consumer
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141810
