Ace Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn: CA 6 Feb 2002

The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay if proceedings were issued whilst negotiations were under way. The insurers later claimed that his claim was out of time. He asserted that they were estopped from making that assertion. The insurance company appealed a finding against them.
Held: An estoppel would require a clear promise with specific regard to the limitation period. It was unnecessary to explore the several different forms of estoppel. Hughes was to apply. There was to be shown a clear representation. It must be precise and unambiguous. The claimants interpretation of what was happening did not affect the objective view of the words used. The offer made was conditional upon the claimant submitting to further examination in any event, which he had not done. No estoppel was established.


Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Thorpe And Lord Justice Keene


[2002] EWCA Civ 67, [2002] 2 Lloyds LR 390




England and Wales


AppliedHughes v Metropolitan Railway Co HL 1877
A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was . .
CitedRepublic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .

Cited by:

CitedSuper Chem Products Limited v American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others PC 12-Jan-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury, Insurance, Estoppel

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167920