Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited v Colonial and Eagle Wharves Limited: 1960

A claim was made under an all risks insurance policy on goods taken out by a firm of wharfingers. There was an excess of andpound;100 each and every claim. During the currency of the policy the wharfingers misdelivered a total of 246 bales on 30 separate occasions.
Held: The word ‘claim’ in the excess clause meant ‘the occurrence of a state of facts which justifies a claim on underwriters. It did not refer to the assertion of a claim on underwriters’ ‘It seems to me quite absurd that the wharfingers’ right of recovery should be determined either by the form of the Bank’s letter of claim against the wharfingers or the form of the wharfingers’ claim against the underwriters. In other words, in my judgment, the operation of the Excess Clause is determined by the facts which give rise to the claim and not by the form in which the claim is asserted.’ There were 30 separate claims covering 30 separate misdeliveries, and that the deductible of andpound;100 applied to each claim.


McNair J


[1960] 2 Lloyds Rep 241


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHaydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another PC 23-Jan-1997
(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.242423