Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s: CA 10 Nov 2004

The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social domestic or pleasure purposes.
Held: The court should look to the essential character of the journey. The incident took place after he had finished his last fare of the evening. At that time he was merely returning home and driving within the terms of the policy.

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Parker The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
[2004] EWCA Civ 1491, Times 17-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1226
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 151
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gardner v Moore HL 1984
The uninsured first defendant deliberately drove a car at the plaintiff who was walking on the pavement, and thus caused serious injuries. The MIB accepted that the trial judge was bound by Hardy to declare that the Bureau was bound to indemnify the . .
Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 1964
The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
Cited – Seddon v Binions CA 1978
The Court gave guidance on the proper method of interpreting a term of a motor insurance policy which defines the limitations of use subject to which the policy provides cover. Roskill LJ: ‘Inevitably, where one has a phrase such as ‘social, . .
Cited – Caple v Sewell and others CA 9-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL 1938
The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.219335

White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau: HL 1 Mar 2001

The requirements as to the extent of knowledge in the mind of a passenger sufficient to defeat a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau, of the driver’s lack of insurance, was actual knowledge. The rules implemented a European Directive which required knowledge of the absence of insurance, and must be interpreted accordingly so as to restrict an exclusion from claiming to the possession of some information which led to a conclusion that the driver was not insured. Carelessness, or negligence as to whether the driver was insured was not knowledge, despite the wording of the English rules.
HL Lord Nicholls said: ‘The Court of Justice has stressed repeatedly that exceptions are to be construed strictly. Here, a strict and narrow interpretation of what constitutes knowledge for the purpose of article 1 is reinforced by the subject matter. The subject matter is compensation for damage to property or personal injury caused by vehicles. The general rule is that victims of accidents should have the benefit of protection up to specified minimum amounts, whether or not the vehicle which caused the damage was insured. The exception, therefore, permits a member state, contrary to the general rule, to make no provision for compensation for a person who has suffered personal injury or damage to property. Proportionality requires that a high degree of personal fault must exist before it would be right for an injured passenger to be deprived of compensation. A narrow approach is further supported by the other prescribed limitation on the permissible ambit of any exclusion: the person claiming compensation must have entered the vehicle voluntarily. The need for the passenger to have entered the vehicle voluntarily serves to confirm that the exception is aimed at persons who were consciously colluding in the use of an uninsured vehicle. And it can be noted that the Directive emphasises the exceptional nature of the exclusion of compensation by placing the burden of proving knowledge on the party who seeks to invoke the exception, namely, the institution responsible for paying compensation.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote
Times 06-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001, [2001] UKHL 9, [2001] 2 All ER 43, [2001] 1 WLR 481, [2001] 1 LLR 679, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1105, [2001] PIQR P20, [2001] 2 CMLR 1, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 679, [2001] RTR 25, [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 493
House of Lords, Bailii
Motor Insurers Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1988, Second EEC Motor Insurance Directive 84/5/EEC
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Evans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 18-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:
Cited – McMminn v McMinn and Another QBD 11-Apr-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a car crash when his younger brother was driving. The driver did not have the owner’s permission to drive, and the insurer sought to avoid laibility.
Held: ‘insurers do not have to prove that the . .
Cited – Phillips v Rafiq and Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) CA 13-Feb-2007
The MIB appealed from a judgment making it liable for an award of damages to the estate of the deceased who had been a passenger in a vehicle which he knew to be being driven without insurance. The estate had not sued the MIB directly, but first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.90472

Prudential Insurance Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1904

Contract for payment of sum on event

The Insurance company provided endowment insurance polices. They disagreed with the Commissioners as to whether these were policies of insurance and thus as to how they fell to be stamped. Life insurance was defined in the 1891 Act as ‘insurance upon any life or lives or upon any event or contingency relating to or depending upon any life or lives.’ The instrument that was to be presented for stamping in that case was the policy of insurance and ‘Policy of insurance’ was defined to mean ‘every writing whereby any contract of insurance is made’.
Held: Channell J defined a contract of insurance: ‘It seems to me that for the purpose of determining whether that contract comes within the definition [of life insurance] we must look at it as a whole, and not split it up into two separate parts . . Whereby for some consideration, usually but not necessarily for periodical payments called premiums, you secure for yourself some benefit, usually but not necessarily the payment of a sum of money, upon the happening of some event . . A contract of insurance, then, must be a contract for the payment of a sum of money, or for some corresponding benefit such as the rebuilding of a house or the repairing of a ship, to become due on the happening of an event, which event must have some amount of uncertainty about it, and must be of a character more or less adverse to the interest of the person effecting the insurance.’

Channell J
[1904] 2 KB 658
Stamp Act 1891
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Department of Trade and Industry v St Christopher Motorists Association Ltd 1974
The defendant company provided for the hire of a chauffeur if the insured was disqualified from driving.
Held: Contracts of insurance are not confined to contracts for the payment of money, but may include a contract for some benefit . .
Cited – Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd v The Financial Services Authority CA 29-Nov-2011
Parties appealed against on order for the winding up of the company. The Authority (FSA) had said that the company which supplied warranties to owners of digital receiver boxes were providing regulated insurance services, but that the companies were . .
Cited – Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Another v Financial Services Authority SC 13-Feb-2013
The appellants challenged an order for the dissolution of their company under the 2000 Acts. They had provided warranties for assorted consumer electrical goods which amounted to insurance, but said that they were not required to be registered under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471980

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance companies and as to whether the compensation under the Acts counted as damages under the policies. The syndicate said that damages are quintessentially sums which fall to be paid by reason of some breach of duty or obligation.
Held: The question for consideration is what the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have reasonably been available to the parties at the time of the contract. There was no clear evidence that the parties had considered the detailed provisions carefully, but was rather a collection of standard clauses. There was no reason to think that the purpose of the Underlying Policy was anything other than the protection of the police fund against claims by third parties for personal injury or damage to property. The claimant was entitled to be indemnified by the defendant pursuant to the Excess Policy in respect of any liability of the claimant to pay compensation under the 1886 Act.

Walker J
[2008] EWHC 1375 (Comm), [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 39, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 200
Bailii
Police Act 1996, Riot (Damages) Act 1886
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Hooley Hill Rubber and Royal Insurance Co CA 1920
When interprting a contract, it is assumed that the draftsman works with a view to certainty of sense and standardisation of terms. Bankes LJ said: ‘Courts should be chary in interfering with the interpretation given to a well-known document and . .
Cited – Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd CA 1994
The word ‘reinsurance’ is often used loosely simply to describe any contract of insurance which is placed by or for the benefit of an insurer, but it should be construed more properly to require the insurance of an insurable interest in the subject . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .
Cited – Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc and Others (1) CA 20-Aug-1996
The court was asked whether the costs of flood alleviation works were recoverable under public liability insurance policies.
Held: A claim for the costs of remedial action taken to mitigate future losses were not covered by the terms of the . .
Cited – F and K Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property 1953
The court was asked as to the effect of foreign regulations on the ownership of a right of action under an insurance policy, and for that purpose examined whether the plaintiff’s claim against the insurance company was a ‘mere right to claim . .
Cited – Hall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young CA 1939
The shipowners appealed a decision that the underwriters were not liable under collision liability clause. Their ship had collided with another at Dunkirk when the steering gear failed. Under french law the pilot was not liable since he had not been . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Constable and others CA 16-Apr-2008
Tesco voluntarily agreed to indemnify a third party for economic loss. When that third party claimed under the indemnity for economic losses arising out of damage to property of another, Tesco sought to claim under its own public liability insurance . .
Cited – Tioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc and others CA 20-Jul-2005
The court considered how an insurance contract should be construed. Langley J said: ‘The general principle is that the proper construction is to be determined by the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in the contractual and commercial . .
Cited – Charterhouse Development (France) Limited v Sharp ChD 1998
French courts had held the claimant liable to remedy the deficiency of an insolvent company’s assets under a French law. The insured now sought repayment by its insurers, who denied that this was a payment of damages.
Held: The payment was . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 3-Apr-1996
The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The . .
Mentioned – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Cited – Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan and Others HL 24-May-1996
The re-insurers appealed against a finding that they were liable to make payment under a contract which required them to pay ‘sums actually paid.’ They said that the company having become insolvent, no payment would in fact be made.
Held: The . .
Cited – J W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver 1967
The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis . .
Cited – DH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority CA 6-Jul-1988
The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the . .
Cited – Ford v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District 1921
Bailhache J considered a claim under the 1886 Act: ‘There must be judgment for the plaintiff, and the question of the quantum of damages must be referred.’ . .
Cited – Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation KBD 1916
It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act.
Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.
Lush J . .
Cited – Pitchers v Surrey County Council 1923
In 1919 there was a riot involving Canadian soldiers from a local Camp. They released fellow soldiers in custody and raided the officers’ mess, and damaged and stole the contents of a tailor’s shop and other shops known as ‘Tin Town’ – a group of . .
Cited – Bearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver CA 1961
Sellers LJ said: ‘The second plaintiffs had paid some andpound;5,000 for that theft; and for their respective losses these plaintiffs sought to recover damages under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886’
The court considered that a liberal approach . .
Cited – Bartoline Limited v Royal Sun Alliance plc 2007
The claimant sought an indemnity under the Public Liability Section of a Combined Policy for: (i) expense incurred by the Environment Agency under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 cleaning up water courses of pollutants after a fire on . .
Cited – Scott (for and Behalf of All Underwriting Members of Syndicates 401 and 857 at Lloyd’s) v The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd CA 16-May-2003
Where an insurance policy required damage to have been caused by an insured risk, the causative link had to be a significant rather than a weak one.
Determining whether transactions are related is therefore an acutely fact sensitive exercise, . .

Cited by:
See Also – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ComC 30-Sep-2008
The owners of the Yarslwood Immigration centre sought damages under the 1886 Act after a riot at the centre caused substantial damage.
Held: The claim failed: ‘The fact that YWIL and GSL [the appellants] were acting as public authorities . .
Appeal from – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
See Also – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Cited – The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270220

Suez Fortune Investments Ltd and Another v Talbot Underwriting Ltd and Others: ComC 5 Nov 2018

Constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO which is being defended on the grounds that the vessel was ‘scuttled’ by her Owner. Disclosure of identity of witness: ‘ In considering an application for non-disclosure of a witness’ identity, the Court applies a two-stage test (see, for example, Kalma v African Minerals Limited [2018] EWHC 120 (QB)). These stages are: (1) The threshold test: the grant of anonymity must be necessary , based on a legitimate fear of danger; (2) If that threshold is met, the court will balance the witness’ interest in anonymity with the interests of the parties in a fair trial, together with the public interest in open justice.
As to the first stage of the test, the threshold of ‘necessity’ is ‘formidable’ (see the Kalma case, and the Yalland case). The applicant must show some direct link between the witness’ legitimate fear of danger, on the one hand, and the disclosure of the witness’ identity, on the other. If the extent of the witness’ fear, or the prospects of the danger eventuating, would not be ‘materially increased’ by the disclosure of the witness’ identity, then it cannot be said that anonymity is necessary, though of course some other protective measures may be (see Re Officer L). Accordingly, anonymity is unlikely to be necessary if the identity of the witness is already known to, or could easily be discovered by, those who threaten harm (see Cherney v Deripaska [2012] EWHC 1781 (Comm)

Justice Teare
[2018] EWHC 2929 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.631337

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable: CA 12 Feb 2009

The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory compensation and not in damages as covered by the insurance policy.
Held: The insured’s appeal failed. Once one appreciates that the reason for the 1886 Act placing the burden of paying compensation to the victims of riot damage on the police authority is that the police are responsible for law and order and that they are (notionally) in breach of that responsibility, it seems to me, as an English lawyer, that compensation payable is a sum which the police authority is ‘liable to pay as damages’.

[2009] EWCA Civ 64
Bailii
Riot (Damages) Act 1886 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – J W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver 1967
The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis . .
Cited – DH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority CA 6-Jul-1988
The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the . .
Cited – Hall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young 1938
The insured vessel, Trident, went to Dunkirk and engaged a French pilot whose pilot boat developed a fault in its steering gear which caused her to collide with Trident without Trident being in any way to blame. French law had a provision that . .
Cited – Hall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young CA 1939
The shipowners appealed a decision that the underwriters were not liable under collision liability clause. Their ship had collided with another at Dunkirk when the steering gear failed. Under french law the pilot was not liable since he had not been . .
Cited – Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .
Cited – Charterhouse Development (France) Limited v Sharp ChD 1998
French courts had held the claimant liable to remedy the deficiency of an insolvent company’s assets under a French law. The insured now sought repayment by its insurers, who denied that this was a payment of damages.
Held: The payment was . .
Cited – Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc and Others (1) CA 20-Aug-1996
The court was asked whether the costs of flood alleviation works were recoverable under public liability insurance policies.
Held: A claim for the costs of remedial action taken to mitigate future losses were not covered by the terms of the . .
Cited – Bartoline Limited v Royal Sun Alliance plc 2007
The claimant sought an indemnity under the Public Liability Section of a Combined Policy for: (i) expense incurred by the Environment Agency under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 cleaning up water courses of pollutants after a fire on . .
Appeal from – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
See Also – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ComC 30-Sep-2008
The owners of the Yarslwood Immigration centre sought damages under the 1886 Act after a riot at the centre caused substantial damage.
Held: The claim failed: ‘The fact that YWIL and GSL [the appellants] were acting as public authorities . .

Cited by:
See Also – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.282613

Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co Ltd v Minister of War Transport: HL 1942

Treatment of Merchant as War Vessel

The House considered when a merchant vessel may be treated on the same footing as a war vessel and be deemed to be engaged on a warlike operation.
Held: This depended on the nature of the cargo and the voyage: ‘She was then in the act of proceeding in convoy from Greenock to Narvik with a cargo of petrol for use by His Majesty’s forces in the Norwegian campaign then on foot. The crucial admission was made on behalf of the respondent that at the time of stranding the vessel was engaged in a warlike operation, namely, proceeding from one war base to another war base with military stores for the use of the British forces in the field . . Under certain circumstances, a trading or merchant vessel has been held to be for purposes of the war risk clause engaged in a warlike operation. As illustrative of these circumstances, I may take those of a merchant ship carrying troops, ammunition, guns, tanks, or other military machines or equipment to a theatre of war, or away from a theatre of war . . Such a vessel may be regarded pro hac vice as serving the belligerent purposes of the country and as taking her share in hostilities against the enemy. She is therefore, it is said, to be deemed to be engaged on a warlike operation.’

Lord Wright
[1942] AC 691, [1942] 2 All ER 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers HL 21-Nov-1996
The defendant had made misrepresentations, inducing the claimant to enter into share transactions which he would not otherwise have entered into, and which lost money.
Held: A deceitful wrongdoer is properly liable for all actual damage . .
Cited – Fogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short Admn 13-Dec-2005
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent not to name the wreck of the merchant ship SS STORAA as a protected site under the 1986 Act. It had been a merchant ship forming part of a convoy, and was sunk by enemy action in . .
Cited – The Walumba (Owners) v Australian Coastal Shipping Commission 1965
(High Court of Australia) Instead of rescuing the vessel, she had been despatched to recover, the Walumba tug herself came into peril, and was salved by a pilot boat.
Held: The pilot boat was to be awarded pounds 10,000 for its services. A . .
Cited – Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (‘the Eurus’) CA 18-Nov-1997
Arcadia chartered the Eurus, and had succeeded in their application for an award in arbitration proceedings against Total. The award had been reversed, and they now appealed against that order. The parties disputed whether the amount was an award of . .
Cited – Petroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport, Insurance

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.191190

Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij v Van Leeuwen: ECJ 29 Apr 2015

LevensverzekeringECJ201504

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Direct life assurance – Directive 92/96/EEC – Article 31(3) – Information to be provided to the policyholder – Obligation for the insurer to provide further information on costs and premiums under general unwritten rules of national law

[2015] EUECJ C-51/13
Bailii
Directive 92/96/EEC 31(3)

European, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.546202

Porter v Zurich Insurance Company: QBD 5 Mar 2009

The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover pursuant to a policy of insurance in respect of a fire which he himself started is faced with the difficulty that his claim is contrary to public policy and/or contrary to general principles of insurance laws. He had to show that he did not know ‘the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know that he was doing what was wrong.’ He failed to establish that to the required level.

Coulson J
[2009] NPC 38, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 658, [2009] EWHC 376 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Daniel M’Naghten’s Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
Cited – Britton v Royal Insurance Company 1865
The insured made a claim under his insurance policy for twice the amount he had actually lost. It was an express condition of the insurance policy that a fraudulent part of a claim would avoid the balance of the claim.
Held: The duty of good . .
Cited – In re Young and Harston’s Contract CA 1885
The court set out what was meant by the term ‘wilful default’ when used in a contract for the sale of land. Bowen LJ said: ‘Wilful is a word of familiar use in every branch of law, and although in some branches of the law it may have a special . .
Cited – Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL 1938
The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .
Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 1964
The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
Cited – Gray v Barr CA 1971
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .
Cited – CP (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd CA 30-Mar-2006
A mill had burned down when children had lit a fire. They had not intended the fire to get out of hand as it did. The insurance company refused to pay out on the basis that the policy did not cover damage arising from ‘any wilful malicious or . .
Cited – D’Autremont v Fire Association of Philadelphia 1892
(USA) The insured was insane when he started a fire. The insurance company refused to pay.
Held: The claim succeeded. Macomber J said: ‘In actions upon policies to cover damages occasioned by loss through fire, it is not a defence which the . .
Cited – Howie v CGU Insurance Plc OHCS 17-Aug-2005
The pursuer claimed under an insurance policy for damage caused by a fire which he had started. The fire had killed his mother. He was charged with murder and, at his criminal trial, the jury had returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty on the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.320873

Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales: CA 14 Jul 2010

Q had provided professional indemnity insurance to a firm of solicitors in which the Law Society had intervened. Claims were made against the firm, but Q declined to pay, saying that the apparently fraudulent activities of the firm fell outside the terms of the policy. Q sought access to the firm’s files and accounting records. The intervention agent had refused saying that this would infringe the privacy of other clients. The Society agreed that the making of a claim by a client amounted to a waiver of confidentiality by that client, but no further.
Held: The insurer’s appeal failed. Neither the defendant nor any client of the firm was party to the contract of insurance and could not be bound by its terms. The Society had possession of the materials through its agent under the provision of the 1974 Act, and ‘There is no reciprocity in this respect between the solicitor/insured and Quinn/the insurer on the one hand or between the Law Society and Quinn/the insurer on the other.’
Nor was it correct to say that by virtue of the indemnity rules, the insurer was somehow meshed in with Society so as to allow access. If a ‘circle of confidence’ existed, it did not include the insurer.

Rimer lJ, Jackson LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 805, A3/2009/2499, [2010] WLR (D) 185, [2010] NPC 80, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 655
Bailii, WLRD
Solicitors Act 1974, The Solicitors’ Indemnity Insurance Rules 2007
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – J Rothschild Assurance Plc v Collyear and Othersl ComC 29-Sep-1998
A claim against an insurance company for compensation for pensions mis-selling was properly subject of a claim by the insurance company in turn under its own professional indemnity insurance policy. Under a ‘claim made’ policy, the risk insured is . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Lloyd’s Policy No 621/ Pk1D00101 and others CA 31-Oct-2008
In construing the terms of insurance policies written in the Lloyd’s market, counsel submitted that the court should have regard to the post-contract conduct of persons acting for the parties, on the basis that the conduct of those persons was . .
Appeal From – Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales ChD 23-Oct-2009
The defendant had intervened in a solicitors’ firm insured by the claimants. The claimants sought access to files and accounting records so that it could defend insurance claims. The defendant denied access to files other than those on which claims . .
Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – March Cabaret Club and Casino Ltd v The London Assurance 1975
. .
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420749

The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd and Others v Aviva Insurance Ltd and Others: ComC 1 Nov 2011

The claimant’s fish restaurant had burned down. The court was asked to make a preliminary determination of issues on construction on insurance policy. The insured sought to evade what the insurer said were breaches of warranty, misrepresentations and material non-disclosure.
Held: The assured was not prevented fromm relying on a non-invalidation clause where damage is in fact caused before the assured is able to give notice of the increased risk. ‘There is no justification . . for denying an assured the benefit of the non-invalidation clause where, there having been a breach of warranty unknown to the assured or beyond his control which increases the risk of damage, damage is in fact caused before he learns of the breach of warranty. A breach of warranty will usually increase the risk of damage and so effect is given to the words ‘which increases the risk of damage’. The argument advanced by counsel for the Defendant was, in effect (albeit not counsel’s intention), an alternative way of suggesting that the non-invalidation clause, contrary to my view, did not apply to breaches of warranty. The clause enables the assured to advance his claim notwithstanding an act, omission or alteration which has increased the risk of damage, such as a breach of warranty, so long as the act, omission or alteration is unknown to or beyond the control of the assured and he gives immediate notice of it once aware of it and pays the additional premium required.’

Teare J
[2011] EWHC 1761 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Greenock Steamship Co v Maritime Insurance Co 1903
. .
Cited – Mentz, Decker and Co v Maritime Insurance Co 1910
. .
Cited – Liberian Insurance Agency v Mosse 1977
. .
Cited – Ansari v New India Assurance Ltd CA 18-Feb-2009
The insured appealed against the refusal of his claim under a commercial policy of his premises which had been damaged in a fire. . .
Cited – FNCB Ltd v Barnet Devanney and Co Ltd CA 1-Jul-1999
An insurance broker was asked to provide insurance to protect a mortgagee but did not arrange mortgage protection cover.
Held: He was in breach of his contract even though the law relating to such insurance was unsure. He was not entitled to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.448077

Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat Ve Ticaret As (‘Yusuf Cepnioglu’): CA 20 Apr 2016

The court had to ascertain the juridical nature of a foreign statute which gives a victim the right to sue a defendant’s insurer directly without first suing the insured.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Longmore, McFarlane LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 386
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance, International

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.562452

Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd and Another: Misc 4 Oct 2012

Manchester County Court – The claimant sought repayment of insurance premiums paid as payment protection insurance when aking out a loan with the defendants as advised by the second defendant. The second defendant was in liquidation by the time her claim was issued. In pursuing a claim for at the most andpound;5,000, her lawyers had accumulated costs to date of andpound;320,000.

Recorder Yip QC
[2012] EW Misc 24 (CC)
Bailii
Consumer Credit Act 1974 140A 140B 140C 140D
Citing:
Binding – Harrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd CA 12-Oct-2011
The appellant sought under section 104A to recover a Payment Protection Insurance premium paid in support of a loan. The borrower dealt directly with the lender, who acted as an intermediary with the insurer. The commission taken by the lender was . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd and Another CA 16-Dec-2013
The claimant sought repayment of a personal protection insurance premium paid to her broker. The broker was now in insolvent liquidation, and she sought to recover the premium from the next intermediary.
Held: Any limitation of section . .
At County Court – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Costs, Consumer

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510059

AIG Europe Sa and Others v John Wood Group Plc and Another: ComC 24 Sep 2021

‘The Claimants, in three separate but related proceedings, are various insurers who seek to continue, on the return date, anti-suit injunctions which were granted on a without notice basis in August 2021. The injunctions relate to proceedings commenced by the Second Defendant against the Claimants in February 2021 in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.’
Mr Justice Jacob
[2021] EWHC 2567 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 October 2021; Ref: scu.668385

Re Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd: ChD 20 Aug 2020

Application to sanction a scheme under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for the transfer of insurance business from Legal and General Assurance Society Limited to ReAssure Limited
Zacaroli J
[2020] EWHC 2299 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.653253

Allianz Insurance Company – Egypt v Aigaion Insurance Company Sa: CA 9 Oct 2008

[2008] EWCA Civ 1223
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.277771

Chattock v Shawe And Others: 11 Jul 1835

[1835] EngR 886, (1835) 1 M and Rob 498, (1835) 174 ER 172
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.316394

Thelwall Thomas Mauritius v Goldsborough Mort and Company Limited: PC 5 May 1939

(New South Wales)
[1939] UKPC 32, (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 1, [1939] AC 452
Bailii
Australia

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.426221

Rozanes v Bowen: CA 1928

The court considered a proposal form for a jeweler’s block policy as filled in by the insured or his agent which incorrectly identified only one previous loss although there were several previous losses. The form stated that ‘It is understood that this proposal will serve as the basis of the contract if a policy is issued’.
Held: Scrutton LJ said: ‘The second point [taken by the insured’s Counsel] was that the answers were not in any way incorporated with the policy so that the correct answering was a condition precedent. The answer to that appears to be at the bottom of the form: ‘This proposal is to serve as the basis of the contract’; and, if so, the truth of the statements in it is equally the basis of the contract.’
Lord Sankey said: ‘The same law was laid down by the Court of Appeal by Lord Esher . . in Hambrough v Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York 72 L.T. 140, which was decided as far back as 1895. There the words in the proposal were not quite the same as the words in the proposal in the present case, but the Lord Chief Justice in the Court below said in his judgment that in his view the proposal was made the basis of the contract, and that the legal effect of the express warranty of the truth of the statements in the proposal is that if any of the statements is untrue the policies cannot be enforced by anyone. He was therefore following almost exactly the law laid down in the House of Lords by Lord Eldon in 1815 in the Newcastle Fire Insurance Company v Macmorran and Co., 3 Dow (H.L.) 255. I only refer to those cases to show that the law in this country at any rate has been settled in that respect for, it appears to me, over a century.’
Scrutton, Sankey LJJ
(1928) 32 Ll L Rep 98
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Genesis Housing Association Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd CA 4-Oct-2013
The housing association was to develop an estate of social housing, supported by an insurance guarantee. The insurance proposal contained a clause stating that the information in the proposal was to form the basis of the policy, and that the policy . .
Cited – Genesis Housing Association Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd TCC 8-Nov-2012
Insurers had rejected a claim under the policy, saying that the proposal form had included a basis of insurance declaration warranted by the proposer, and that since it had named a main contractor different to the one named, there was no liability . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.512348

Manolakaki v Constantinides, Lange (on Behalf of Lloyd’s Syndicate 1208 (Cox)): ChD 2 Apr 2004

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
[2004] EWHC 749 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.195091

The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd v HSBC Insurance (UK) Ltd: ComC 19 Apr 2010

Gavin Kealey QC DHCJ set out the concept of double insurance: ‘Double insurance arises where the same party is insured with two (or more) insurers in respect of the same interest on the same subject-matter against the same risks. If a loss by a peril insured against occurs, the general rule is that, subject to any particular modifying terms and to the limits of indemnity provided under each insurance contract, the insured may recover for the whole of the loss from either insurer. Upon such indemnity being paid to the insured by either one of the two insurers, that insurer is, in general, entitled to recover a contribution from the other.’
Gavin Kealey QC DHCJ
[2010] EWHC 773 (Comm), [2010] 1 CLC 557
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc PC 24-May-1993
Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities. . .
Cited – Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office (NSW) 31-Oct-1969
(High Court of Australia) Insurance – Contribution between insurers – Identity of risk insured – Loss covered by two policies – General nature and purpose of policies different – Extent of rights and liabilities created under policies different – . .
Cited – Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd CA 15-Jan-1991
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.408675

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd: CA 6 Feb 2006

The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on public liability policies which covered claims made during the currency of the policy rather than under employers’ liability polcies which covered damage incurred during the policy.
Held: MMU’s policy required the injury rather than its cause, to arise during the policy, and they were liable to indemnify Bolton unless CU were liable. CU’s policy provided cover only during the time of exposure, and the claimant had no claim against them. An insurer is entitled to say that he has only agreed to issue on certain terms and he ought to be able to rely on that position not only against his insured but also as against a co-insurer. The rejection by an insurer on the grounds of lack of cover could not be counted as a waiver of his right later to plead a breach of condition even in respect of a breach which had already happened.
Auld LJ, Longmore LJ, Hallett LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 50, Times 09-Feb-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1492, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 173
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd HL 1963
The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of . .
Cited – Keenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd 8-Dec-1987
The claimant’s cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd . .
Cited – Promet Engineering (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Formerly Self-Elevating Platform Management Pte Limited) v Nicholas Colwyn Sturge and others (The Nukila) CA 26-Mar-1997
Insurers were liable for other damage to ship hull if there had been more than a latent defect in it. In Inchmaree clauses in English law, ‘damage’ usually refers to a changed physical state. . .
Cited – McCaul v Elias Wild 14-Sep-1989
The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness. . .
Cited – Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board HL 22-Oct-1987
The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of . .
Cited – Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd 17-Nov-1988
The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in 1952 and 1953 and later diagnosed with asbestosis.
Held: He had suffered no injury by 4th June 1954 because physical injury would not occur for at least 5 (and more likely 10 – 20) years after exposure. . .
Cited – Jameson and Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited 10-Mar-1995
The plaintiff claimed damages for mesothelioma. CEGB had provided a contractual indemnity in respect of damage or injury occurring before building works were taken over by a client in 1960. The question was whether a workman who died from . .
Cited – Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited HL 1970
The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. The landlord did not take the point at first, and delivered an answer and negotiated compensation. . .
Cited – China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas) HL 1979
A hire clause was in bespoke terms providing for withdrawal ‘in default of payment’. The payment of hire for the final instalment was deficient because, as the umpire held, the charterers’ deductions for the length of the final voyage and bunkers on . .
Cited – Welch v Royal Exchange Assurance CA 1938
The court was asked whether compliance with a clause in the insurance contract was a condition precedent. There was also a question whether the insured could rely on facts arising after the making of their claim.
Held: If a clause does not set . .
Cited – Peyman v Lanjani CA 1985
Application was made for consent to assign a lease. The court was asked whether or not the purchaser of a leasehold interest in a property, who had elected to affirm the contract despite a repudiatory breach by the vendor, could be held to his . .
Cited – Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd CA 15-Jan-1991
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 . .
Cited – Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc PC 24-May-1993
Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities. . .
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited by:
Cited – Lexington Insurance Co v AGF Insurance Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
The respondent insurers had been held liable in Washington, and had been granted indemnity against the appellants by the Court of Appeal. The insurance contract had been under the law of Pennsylvania, but that of the re-insurance under the law of . .
Contrasted – Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.238308

Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc: PC 24 May 1993

Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities.
Lord Woolf
Times 09-Jun-1993, [1994] 1 AC 130, [1993] UKPC 22
Bailii
Citing:
Not Followed – Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd CA 15-Jan-1991
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Cited – The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd v HSBC Insurance (UK) Ltd ComC 19-Apr-2010
Gavin Kealey QC DHCJ set out the concept of double insurance: ‘Double insurance arises where the same party is insured with two (or more) insurers in respect of the same interest on the same subject-matter against the same risks. If a loss by a . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.80208

Drake Insurance Plc (In Provisional Liquidation) v Provident Insurance Plc: CA 17 Dec 2003

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Rix
[2003] EWCA Civ 1834, [2004] RTR 19, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 277, [2004] QB 601, [2004] 2 WLR 530
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.188911

Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd: CA 15 Jan 1991

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.
Lloyd LJ said: l ‘the principles on which one insurer is entitled to recover from another in a case of double insurance have been settled since Lord Mansfield’s day’.
Lloyd LJ
Gazette 15-Jan-1992, [1992] QB 887, [1992] 2 WLR 157, [1992] 1 All ER 283, [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 36
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not Followed – Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc PC 24-May-1993
Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities. . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Cited – The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd v HSBC Insurance (UK) Ltd ComC 19-Apr-2010
Gavin Kealey QC DHCJ set out the concept of double insurance: ‘Double insurance arises where the same party is insured with two (or more) insurers in respect of the same interest on the same subject-matter against the same risks. If a loss by a . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.83017

UK Acorn Finance Ltd v Markel (UK) Ltd: ComC 21 Apr 2020

Claim brought under section 1(1) and (4) of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 by which it seeks to recover an indemnity in respect of two judgments, being a judgment for pounds 385,187.32 and a further judgment for pounds 12,882,713.49, obtained by it against Westoe 19 Limited under professional indemnity policies underwritten by the defendant.
Defendant avoiding policies.
HH Judge Pelling QC
[2020] EWHC 922 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.651161

Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd and Another v Erinaceous Insurance Services Ltd: ComC 1 Apr 2008

Field J
[2008] EWHC 520 (Comm), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 676, [2008] NPC 40
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.266337

Wood v Woad: CEC 1 Jun 1874

Declaration, alleging that the plaintiff was a member of a mutual insurance society, which insured members against losses to ships entered and insured in the books of the society, on a deposit being made of 5l. per cent, on the amount insured ; that the defendants were the committee of the society, by the rules of which they had the entire control of the funds and affairs of the society, and were to determine on the admission or rejection of ships insured or proposed for insurance; that by another rule, ‘if the committee shall at any time deem the conduct of any member suspicious, or that such member is for any other reason unworthy of remaining in this society, they shall have full power to exclude such member, by directing the secretary to give such member notice in writing that the committee have excluded such member from the society, and, after the giving of such notice, such member shall be excluded, and have no claim or be responsible for or in respect of any loss or damage happening after such notice ; ‘ that the plaintiff, as such member, had entered a ship on the books of the society, and had paid the deposit, and was thereupon entitled to an indemnity for loss happening to the ship ; that the defendants, well knowing the premises, but ‘wrongfully, collusively, and improperly contriving to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of such indemnity, did wrongfully, collusively, and improperly expel the plaintiff from the society on the alleged ground that his conduct was suspicious, or that he was for some reason unworthy of remaining in the society, without giving the plaintiff, or any person on his behalf, any opportunity whatsoever of being heard before them, and without, in fact, hearing the plaintiff, or any person on his behalf, in defence and vindication of the plaintiff’s conduct as a member of the society with reference to the said ground of expulsion ‘; whereby the plaintiff lost the benefit of an indemnity for damage which his ship subsequently sustained, and was otherwise damnified. Demurrer.
Held: that the declaration shewed no cause of action.
By Kelly, C.B., Pollock and Amphlett, BB. (following Blisset v. Daniel, 10 Hare, 493), on the ground that, assuming the allegations of the declaration to be true, the act of the defendants in expelling the plaintiff without giving him an opportunity of being heard was void ; that the plaintiff, therefore, still remained a member of the society, and had sustained no damage.
By Cleasby and Pollock, BB., on the ground that the declaration did not sufficiently charge mala fides.
Quaere, by Cleasby and Amphlett, BB., whether any action would lie against the defendants for acts done by them in the discharge of their functions as members of the committee.
Kelly CB said of audi alteram partem: ‘This rule is not confined to the conduct of strictly legal tribunals, but is applicable to every tribunal or body of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences to individuals’.
Kelly CB
[1874] UKLawRpExch 26, (1873-1874) LR 9 Exch 190
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Blisset v Daniel 1853
The court considered the limits on a power of expulsion from a partnership.
Held: (Page-Wood V-C) Construing the articles, two-thirds of the partners could expel a partner by serving a notice upon him without holding any meeting or giving any . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.653098

ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd and others v Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Ltd and others: ComC 16 May 2007

Application to amend pleadings.
Christopher Clarke J
[2007] EWHC 1150 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 06 October 2021; Ref: scu.252378

Phoenix General Insurance Co of Greece SA v Halvanon Insurance Co Ltd: ChD 1985

The court was asked to consider preliminary issues concerning facultative obligatory (fac. oblig.) reinsurances of a variety of business. The issues included whether the reinsured was obliged to keep a retention and whether the writing of its business was subject to implied terms. Both parties were suggesting that terms were to be implied.
Held: Hobhouse J accepted an implied term into contracts of reinsurance, which extended to the obligation to keep proper accounting records and to make them reasonably available to reinsurers as being something which ‘would probably be imported anyway by the duty of good faith’.
Hobhouse J set out the pleaded implied terms and said: ‘The implication of these terms was not controversial before me. Both [expert] witnesses thought them appropriate. Even though the opinion of the witnesses as to what is appropriate and reasonable does not itself suffice to show that such terms should be implied, I am satisfied that such terms are necessary in the present transactions. The fac. oblig. nature of the transaction which imposes no restriction on the reassured’s right to chose whether to cede or not to cede, without giving the reinsurer any equivalent right, does necessitate that the reinsured should accept the obligation to conduct the business involved in the cession prudently, reasonably carefully and in accordance with the ordinary practice of the market. In the general formulation the word ‘reasonable’ is to be preferred to ‘due’ and the duty to act prudently as if not reinsured is not an alternative but it is really a restatement of the same obligation, provided it is realised that the obligation does not preclude the plaintiffs from taking into account the added capacity to write business that the availability of the reinsurances give them. Such is, after all, one of the important purposes of any reinsurance. In general terms, it must also be pointed out that the overrider commission being paid to the plaintiffs in part specifically covers the cost of carrying out these obligations.’
Hobhouse J
[1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 599
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd CA 1994
The word ‘reinsurance’ is often used loosely simply to describe any contract of insurance which is placed by or for the benefit of an insurer, but it should be construed more properly to require the insurance of an insurable interest in the subject . .
Cited – Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Another v Financial Services Authority SC 13-Feb-2013
The appellants challenged an order for the dissolution of their company under the 2000 Acts. They had provided warranties for assorted consumer electrical goods which amounted to insurance, but said that they were not required to be registered under . .
Cited – Re Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Others ChD 31-Jan-2011
The Financial Services Authority sought public interest orders for the winding up of three companies selling, it said, extended warranty cover plans without authorisation. The companies said that authorisation was not required, since only services . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.470965

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Bibby (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 24 Jul 1999

Charges on income are not first to be deducted before computing relevant profits of a company carrying on life assurance business under the Act. This allows such companies to set such charges against the balance of profits chargeable to corporation tax at the full rate, and not merely at the rate set for the policy holders’ share.
Times 24-Jul-1999
Finance Act 1989 88(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Bibby (Inspector of Taxes) v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd; Oakes (Inspector of Taxes) v Equitable Life Assurance Society ChD 17-May-2000
A life insurance company which sold its ‘own purchase shares’ was not prevented by the section from reclaiming the tax credits on associated income distributions. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85068

Marshall v The Emperor Life Assurance Society: QBD 13 Nov 1865

To a declaration on a policy of life insurance the defendant pleaded, that the proposal, the basis of the policy, declared the life insured had not had any symptoms of certain enumerated diseases, or any other complaint, whereas he had had symptoms of disease of the stomach.
The Court ordered particulars to be
delivered of the symptoms of the disease alleged.
[1865] EngR 728, (1865) 6 B and S 886, (1865) 122 ER 1420, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 35, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 15
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.281640

Rayner and Another v Ritson: QBD 14 Nov 1865

Inspection of documents. 14 and 15 Vict. c. 99, S. 6. Marine Insurance. Action on policy. – In an action on a policy of marine insurance for a constructive total loss the defendant is entitled, both under the old practice and the Statute 14 and 15 Vict c. 99, s 6, to an inspection of all papers iii the possession of the Plaintiff relative to the matters in issue, including letters between the captain and the plaintiff.
[1865] EngR 730, (1865) 6 B and S 888, (1865) 122 ER 1421
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.281642

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v CGU International Insurance Plc and others: ComC 2 May 2003

[2003] EWHC 1073 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.182153

Re Rothesay Life Plc: ChD 7 Aug 2020

Snowden J
[2020] EWHC 2185 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.653027

Elison v Collingridge: 15 Apr 1850

[1850] EngR 422, (1850) 9 CB 570, (1850) 137 ER 1014
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.297769

Bee v Jenson: CA 13 Sep 2007

The claimant hired a car whilst his own, damaged by the defendant, was being repaired. His insurer sought to recover the cost from the other driver. The insurer had first arranged te hire with one company, but then another provided a finacial reward to switch to it. The policy provided that a second insurance company would cover legal expenses and arrange the hire of a replacement vehicle (all as a provision of the original insurance to which the 1974 Act would not apply). The defendant said this arrangement was ineffective in law, since the claimant himself was not liable for the cost of the hire.
Held: The defendant’s argument failed. Mr Bee was entitled to recover the reasonable cost of hire even though, having been fully indemnified, he would hold that sum for the benefit of DAS.
Tuckey LJ, Longmore LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy
[2007] EWCA Civ 923, Times 17-Oct-2008, [2007] 4 All ER 791
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Alexander v Rolls Royce Ltd CA 1996
The claimant was not entitled to damages for loss of enjoyment in the use of his Rolls Royce whilst it was off the road after an accident. . .
Cited – Brown v Davis and Galbraith 1972
The garage, had negotiated with the insurers and entered into a written agreement with them on their printed forms to repair cars of the insured clients. When the insurer failed, they sought to recover payment from the car owners.
Held: The . .
Cited – Adams v London Motor Builders 1921
A plaintiff whose claim was being supported and paid for by a trade union was nevertheless liable to the solicitor instructed by the Union for that solicitor’s costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.259316

Korea National Insurance Corp (KNIC) v Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality Ag: CA 2 Dec 2008

The insurance company appealed against refusal of the court to decline to enforce a judgment entered against it by the courts of North Korea. It had argued that the insurance policy had been obtained by fraud of the NK government, and that the court was not independent of NK. The court had found the defence non-justiciable.
Held: The judge had made his order without advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He should not have done so. ‘There is no general rule that if an allegation might embarrass a foreign sovereign it follows that that will also embarrass diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom and that thus such embarrassing issues are non-justiciable.’ Nevertheless allegations of fraud against a head of state were particularly serious, and the court might consider whether the case could be repleaded to avoid the non-justiciability issue.
Waller LJ, Rix LJ, Thomas LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1355, Times 22-Dec-2008, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 480, [2008] 2 CLC 837, [2009] Bus LR D59
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Korea National Insurance Company v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty Ag ComC 18-Nov-2008
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment for payment of a sum under a policy of insurance. The defendant sought to refuse saying that the policy had been instigated by a fraud perpetrated by the state of North Korea, and or that the judicial system . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Conjoined Appeals 4 and 5) CA 10-Nov-2000
If a foreign made law was in breach of clearly established international law, then an English court should not recognise it. To do otherwise would be contrary to public policy. An interference with goods pursuant to such a law was actionable in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.278525

AXL Resources Ltd v Antares Underwriting Services Ltd and Another: ComC 14 Dec 2010

Application for summary judgment.
Gloster J
[2010] EWHC 3244 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.447408

ABN Amro Bank Nv v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Others: ComC 26 Feb 2021

The Claimant the Bank claimed an indemnity of approximately pounds 33.5 million under a policy of insurance subscribed to by the 1st – 14th Defendants as underwriters. Whilst there is no dispute that each of the underwriters did subscribe to a relevant policy of insurance, the precise identification of the relevant policy document is one of the many issues in the case.
Jacobs J
[2021] EWHC 442 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 September 2021; Ref: scu.660075

Mitchell v Hiscox Underwriting Ltd and Others: SCS 9 Feb 2010

[2010] ScotCS CSIH – 18, 2010 GWD 13-244
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.403384

Strover and Another v Strover and Another: ChD 10 May 2005

Insurance policies had been taken out by the partners in a firm. The surviving family of one and the remaining partners contested ownership. The policy was held in part for the benefit of the family. The premiums had been paid from partnership funds, but from drawings accounts. The premiums had continued to be paid by the partnership after his retirement and also after his death.
Held: The trusts should be rectified to hold part of the proceeds for the defendant family members. The family had not raised the issue of an estoppel in their pleadings, but the judge finding that such a pleading was proper, he could apply an estoppel in the absence of it being pleaded.
Hart J
[2005] EWHC 860 (Ch), Times 30-May-2005
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
oxley_hiscockCA2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
Cited – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names . .
Cited – Willmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Cited – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.224888

Rockliffe Hall Ltd v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd: ComC 25 Feb 2021

Application made by the Defendant (Travelers) for an order that the case of the Claimant, Rockliffe Hall, be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4, or alternatively that summary judgment be entered against the Claimant pursuant to CPR 24.2. Claim for payment under business cover arising from Covid-19 pandemic.
Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE
[2021] EWHC 412 (Comm), [2021] WLR(D) 134, [2021] Bus LR 656
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.660085

Super 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 insurer having argued for fraud, had repudiated the contract and couild not therefore now rely upon a clause within it as a second string defence.
Held: In a fire insurance context, despite a repudiatory breach of contract, obligations under the contract survive until the breach is accepted by the innocent party as terminating the contract. Jureidini is not an authoritative decision on insurance law or general contract law. The insurers were not precluded from relying upon the clause even though fraud might have been alleged. No waiver or estoppel had been established simply by negotiating. There had been no agreement to extend the time bar.
PC Lord Steyn: ‘Contract law cannot and does not prevent an insurer from resisting a claim on alternative bases, one involving an allegation of fraud and the other breaches of policy conditions.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Kenneth Keith
[2004] UKPC 2, Times 28-Jan-2004, [2004] 2 All ER 358
Bailii, PC, PC, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
Restricted – Jureidini v National British and Irish Millers Insurance Company Limited HL 1915
An insurance company disputed liability of a claim arising out of a fire, alleging fraud and arson. These allegations were not sustained. The insurer then sought to resist liability on the basis that, by litigating, the insured was in breach of an . .
Cited – Sanderson and Son v Armour and Co, Ltd HL 8-May-1922
A quantity of American storage eggs of a specified brand were bought, c.i.f., to Glasgow and/or Liverpool to be delivered in three equal instalments, payment to be cash against documents on arrival of the goods. The buyers accepted the documents . .
Cited – Woodall v Pearl Assurance Co Ltd CA 1919
. .
Cited – Heyman v Darwins Limited HL 1942
An arbitration clause will survive a repudiatory breach: ‘I agree with the Lord Chancellor in thinking that the true ground of the decision in Jureidini v National British and Irish Millers Insurance Co Ltd was the narrowness of the field of . .
Cited – Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty Ltd; The New York Star PC 1980
A question arose, in the context of dispute between a consignee of goods and stevedores, whether the latter could rely on a time bar. It was argued that because of the fundamental nature of the breach, the stevedore had deprived itself of the . .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale HL 1966
No magic in the words “fundamental breach”
There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the . .
Cited – London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2) CA 16-Jun-2000
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time.
Held: Section 9 . .
Cited – Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd HL 1972
To found a promissory estoppel there has to be a clear and unequivocal representation as to the intended actions of the defendant.
Lord Hailsham LC reiterated the proposition derived from Low v Bouverie that in order to give rise to an . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Diab v Regent Insurance Company Ltd PC 19-Jun-2006
(Belize) The appellant’s premises were destroyed by fire. The insurer respondents refused payment, saying that the claimant had delayed notification, had stored ammunition, and had started the fire himself.
Held: Lord Scott referered to his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.192643

Sanderson and Son v Armour and Co, Ltd: HL 8 May 1922

A quantity of American storage eggs of a specified brand were bought, c.i.f., to Glasgow and/or Liverpool to be delivered in three equal instalments, payment to be cash against documents on arrival of the goods. The buyers accepted the documents tendered and paid cash for the first instalment on its arrival. On the arrival of the second instalment they refused to take up the documents and pay the price until they had had an opportunity of examining the eggs. They thereafter brought an action of damages for breach of contract against the sellers, in which they averred that the first instalment was not of the brand specified and was largely unmerchantable, that the sellers had refused to allow them to inspect the second instalment before accepting the documents and paying the price, and that that instalment also was unmerchantable. They further averred that no proper policy of insurance had been tendered. Subsequently the pursuers wrote to the defenders stating that they (the pursuers) rescinded the contract in respect that it had been repudiated by the defenders. The defenders denied repudiation, and in defence to the action pleaded, inter alia, that the dispute fell to be referred to arbitration under a clause in the contract which provided-‘Any dispute on this contract to be settled by arbitration in the usual way.’ Held ( affirming the judgment of the First Division) that the pursuers’ averments did not disclose that the defenders had repudiated the contract as a whole, to the effect that the contract, including the arbitration clause, was at an end, and accordingly that the action fell to be sisted in order that the dispute might be referred to arbitration.
Examination (per Lord Dunedin) of the law of Scotland with regard to clauses of arbitration in contracts and their effects.
‘I should say a single word as to the case of Jureidini. That case has in my view no application, for the simple reason that the clause of reference there was not a reference of all disputes, but only a reference as to the evaluation of loss. In other words, the clause was not a clause of the universal sort . .’ (Lord Dunedin)
Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, and Lord Sumner
1922 SC (HL) 117, [1922] UKHL 268, 59 SLR 268
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Explained – Jureidini v National British and Irish Millers Insurance Company Limited HL 1915
An insurance company disputed liability of a claim arising out of a fire, alleging fraud and arson. These allegations were not sustained. The insurer then sought to resist liability on the basis that, by litigating, the insured was in breach of an . .

Cited by:
Cited – Super 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.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.632805

ARC Capital Partners Ltd v Brit Syndicates Ltd and Others: ComC 29 Jan 2016

Cooke J
[2016] EWHC 141 (Comm), [2016] 4 WLR 18, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 253, [2016] WLR(D) 47
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.559429

Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd and Another v Argo Systems Fze: CA 15 Dec 2011

‘Saying nothing and ‘standing by’, ie. doing nothing, are, to my mind, equivocal actions. This court has stated that, in the absence of special circumstances, silence and inaction are, when objectively considered, equivocal and cannot, of themselves, constitute an unequivocal representation as to whether a person will or will not rely on a particular legal right in the future’
Lord Justice Aikens
[2011] EWCA Civ 1572
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Argo Systems FZE v Liberty Insurance (PTE) and Another ComC 21-Feb-2011
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Jones and Another v Lydon and Others ChD 23-Aug-2021
No Estoppels Established to Override Majority
The parties were former members of a band, the Sex Pistols. They disputed the continued duty to accept the decision of the majority of its members as set out in a Band Membership Agreement. Mr Lydon asserted that over the years the obligation had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.450051

Argo Systems FZE v Liberty Insurance (PTE) and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2011

Mackie QC HHJ
[2011] EWHC 301 (Comm), [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 1111, [2011] 2 Lloyds Rep 61, [2011] 1 CLC 341
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd and Another v Argo Systems Fze CA 15-Dec-2011
‘Saying nothing and ‘standing by’, ie. doing nothing, are, to my mind, equivocal actions. This court has stated that, in the absence of special circumstances, silence and inaction are, when objectively considered, equivocal and cannot, of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.430496

Hiscox v Outhwaite (No 3): ChD 1991

A Lloyd’s syndicate’s whole account stop loss reinsurance was on terms which were agreed to be the equivalent of a follow the settlements clause. The question was whether the reinsurer was liable where the insurers, acting in a proper and business-like way, had made payments for which they were not legally liable under the Wellington agreement, a claims handling facility set up by producers and their insurers to deal with large numbers of asbestosis claims.
Held: The reinsurers were not liable. Reinsurers are bound by reasonable compromises on liability and quantum between the insurers and their assured under the terms of the original policy. The insurer does not have to prove that if the original claim was fully argued it would in fact have succeeded. No investigation as to whether it was arguably within the terms of the original policy is required.
Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the reinsurer is always entitled to raise issues as to the scope of the reinsurance contract, and where the risks are co-extensive with those of the underlying insurance he is not precluded from raising such issues, even when there is a ‘follow the settlement’ term of the reinsurance contract. Ultimately, this is the only sure protection which the reinsurer has against being called upon to indemnify the reinsured against payments which were not legally due from him to the original insured, however reasonable and business-like the payments may have been. But this is subject to one proviso which I have already assumed in the syndicate’s favour, and which is supported by the judgment of Hunter J.A. in the Grand Union case, quoted above. The reinsurer may well be bound to follow the insurer’s settlement of a claim which arguably, as a matter of law, is within the scope of the original insurance, regardless of whether the court might hold, if the issue was fully argued before it, that as a matter of law the claim would have failed.’
Evans J
[1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 524
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hiscox v Outhwaite CA 1991
. .
At first instance – Hiscox v Outhwaite (No 1) HL 29-Jul-1991
An arbitration award is perfected in the place where the arbitrator signs it, irrespective of where the arbitration to place. If the award is signed in a country party to the 1958 convention, being and forcible as a conventional Ward under the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.667376

Department of Trade and Industry v St Christopher Motorists Association Ltd: 1974

The defendant company provided for the hire of a chauffeur if the insured was disqualified from driving.
Held: Contracts of insurance are not confined to contracts for the payment of money, but may include a contract for some benefit corresponding to the payment of money.
Templeman J referred to Prudential and said: ‘That definition, including Channell J’s careful pronouncement that there must either be the payment of a sum or some corresponding benefit, seems to me to meet the present case and particularly so when, in substance, there seems to me to be no difference between the defendant company paying a chauffeur on the one hand and on the other hand agreeing to pay to the individual member a sum of money which would represent the cost to him of providing himself with a chauffeur in the event of his being disabled from driving himself. I cannot see any difference in logic between the two and therefore I see no reason why, in the present case, the arrangement made by the defendant company should not amount to insurance.’
Templeman J
[1974] 1 WLR 99
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Prudential Insurance Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1904
Contract for payment of sum on event
The Insurance company provided endowment insurance polices. They disagreed with the Commissioners as to whether these were policies of insurance and thus as to how they fell to be stamped. Life insurance was defined in the 1891 Act as ‘insurance . .

Cited by:
Cited – Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Another v Financial Services Authority SC 13-Feb-2013
The appellants challenged an order for the dissolution of their company under the 2000 Acts. They had provided warranties for assorted consumer electrical goods which amounted to insurance, but said that they were not required to be registered under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.471981

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (Appeal No 64 of 2000): PC 4 Dec 2001

(New Zealand) The insurance company was taxed on the interest it charged to policyholders on late payments of life insurance and investment premiums. The Act had now been superceded. The Commissioner now appealed a dismissal of the charge. The debt was calculated as the arrears plus compounded interest. The Commissioner argued that the arrangement was by way of a loan advanced to the policyholder to pay the premium upon which interest was charged. The legislation divided insurance company income into investment income which was taxable, and premium income which wasn’t.
Held: There was no proper reason for distinguishing interest on late premiums from the premiums themselves, and the interest was not taxable.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Sir Kenneth Keith
Appeal No 64 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 54, [2002] BTC 9, [2002] STC 13, [2001] STI 1770
PC, PC, Bailii
Income Tax Act 1976 204 (New Zealand)
England and Wales

Updated: 21 August 2021; Ref: scu.167069

Griffiths v Fleming: CA 4 Mar 1909

A husband and his wife effected with an insurance association a policy whereby, in consideration of a premium of which each paid part, a sum of money was made payable upon the death of whichever of them should die first to the survivor. The wife having died, the husband brought an action upon the policy to recover the policy money.
Held: Upon the footing that the policy was an insurance by the husband upon the life of the wife, that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Life Assurance Act, 1774, it was not necessary, in order to maintain the action, that the plaintiff should prove that he had any pecuniary interest in the life of his wife.
The interest ‘must be a legal interest, not a mere chance or expectation’
Farwell LJ said (read in agreement by Kennedy LJ: ‘[Section 3 of the 1774 Act] has been held to mean ‘pecuniary interest’ measured by the loss that would be suffered by the beneficiary if the life stopped at the date of the policy. Lord Blackburn says in Wilson v Jones (L.R. 2 Ex 139 at p.150): ‘I know of no better definition of an interest in an event than . . that, if the event happens, the party will gain an advantage, if it is frustrated he will suffer a loss.’ And the interest must be a legal interest, not a mere chance or expectation: Hebdon v West; Halford v Kymer.’
Farwell LJ and Kennedy LJ
[1909] 1 KB 805, [1909] UKLawRpKQB 57
Commonlii
Life Assurance Act 1774 3, Married Wome??’s Property Act 1882 11
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland CA 19-Dec-2003
A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.195617

Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland: CA 19 Dec 2003

A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ dissenting) It was a matter for construction of the policy. Though there was no evidence as to the circumstances of the taking out of policy, the death benefit was intended by the parties to be payable to the survivor of either them; it was to be for the exclusive benefit of the survivor, and was intended to enable the survivor to deal with the financial consequences of the death of the other. If the policy was joint then under the 1975 Act the court had a discretion to make provision from it for the child.
Thomas LJ said: ‘Next the question arises as to whether it was likely that the parties would have intended to include within a policy a terminal illness benefit that was owed to them jointly and a death benefit that was not. It might at first sight be thought surprising that that would be the case, but on consideration, I do not think so. The benefit payable on terminal illness would be needed by both of the policy holders to defray the cost of that illness; in contradistinction, the benefit on death would only be required by the survivor. On analysis, therefore, the purpose of the benefits was different and different treatment within a composite policy accorded with the obvious intention attributed to the parties in respect of the different nature of the benefits.’
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Pill , Lord Justice ThomasLord Justice Thomas
[2003] EWCA (Civ) 1862, [2004] 1 FCR 1
Bailii
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 9(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v Midland Bank CA 1940
Three parties were named as the insured under a fire policy, a company occupying the insured premises, the freeholders of the premises and the bank who had a floating charge over the property of the occupiers. A question arose as to the nature of . .
Cited – Reed v Royal Exchange Assurance Co 1795
A wife is presumed to have an insurable interest in the life of her husband. . .
Cited – Griffiths v Fleming CA 4-Mar-1909
A husband and his wife effected with an insurance association a policy whereby, in consideration of a premium of which each paid part, a sum of money was made payable upon the death of whichever of them should die first to the survivor. The wife . .
Cited – Lea v Hinton 1854
One person may have an insurable interest not only in his own life, but also in the life of another. . .
Cited – Branford v Saunders 1877
One person may have an insurable interest in the life of another. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lim and Others v Walia ChD 26-Sep-2012
The court was asked: ‘where the proceeds of a fixed term joint life policy are paid over as the result of the death of the first of the joint lives insured, but in circumstances where it is to be assumed that the payment of the sum insured might . .
Cited – Lim (An Infant) v Walia CA 29-Jul-2014
lim_walia1407
The parties disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. Immediately before her death, the deceased had, because of her medical condition, a vested right to bring forward an insurance benefit, but that right had ceased upon her death. The court had found . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.188899

Public Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate Ltd and Others: ComC 17 Jun 2020

Reserved judgment on the claimant’s application for summary judgment on its claim for recognition and enforcement of three judgments obtained in its favour in the Russian courts
[2020] EWHC 1557 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990
Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner
The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.652434

Sunport Shipping Ltd and others v Atkin and others: ComC 27 Feb 2002

Cresswell J
[2002] EWHC 253 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 August 2021; Ref: scu.178919

Kvaerner plc v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 14 Jun 2001

(Judgment) Non-life insurance – Directive 88/357/EEC – Definition of establishment and the State where the risk is situated
C. Gulmann, P
[2001] 3 WLR 1663, [2001] EUECJ C-191/99, [2001] 3 CMLR 2, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 68,, [2001] CEC 157, [2001] STC 1007, [2002] QB 385, [2001] ECR I-4447, [2001] BTC 8018, ECLI:EU:C:2001:332
Bailii
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.162754

Siu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd: PC 16 Dec 1993

Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant policy.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘There are two reasons why their Lordships prefer the decision in Mark Rowlands . . In the first place the words ‘event or events’ in section 2, while apt to describe the loss of the vessel are hardly apt to describe . . liability arising under the common law, as a consequence of the loss of the vessel. Secondly, section 2 must take colour from the short title and preamble to Section 1. By no stretch of the imagination could indemnity insurance be described as a ‘mischievous kind of gaming’. Their Lordships are entitled to give section 2 a meaning which corresponds with the obvious legislative intent.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘For present purposes the law can be summarised shortly. (1) An undisclosed principal may sue and be sued on a contract made by an agent on his behalf, acting within the scope of his actual authority. (2) In entering into the contract, the agent must intend to act on the principal’s behalf. (3) The agent of an undisclosed principal may also sue and be sued on the contract. (4) Any defence which the third party may have against the agent is available against his principal. (5) The terms of the contract may, expressly or by implication, exclude the principal’s right to sue, and his liability to be sued. The contact itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that the agent is the true and only principal.’
Lord Lloyd
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 16-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 AC 199, [1994] 1 All ER 213, [1994] 2 WLR 370
Insurance Act 1774 2
Commonwealth
Citing:
Applied – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.89287

Baines and Another v Dixon Coles and Gill (A Firm) and Others: CA 6 Aug 2021

Two appeals concerning the question whether claims brought against a firm of solicitors should be aggregated for the purposes of the limit of indemnity in the firm’s professional indemnity insurance.
Lord Justice Nugee
[2021] EWCA Civ 1211
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666514

Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd: ComC 23 Apr 2008

Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 843 (Comm), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 643
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd CA 6-Apr-2009
‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267064

Crossley v Faithfull and Gould Holdings Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2004

The employee claimant was to retire. On his employer’s negligent advice he resigned and opted for discretionary benefits.
Held: The employer owed no general duty of care to an employee’s financial interests. Nor could a term requiring such a standard of care be implied within the contract. Rather than focus upon necessity, it was better to before such a standard term could be implied, the court should assess its reasonableness, fairness, and the appropriate balance between employer and employee. Given that the House of Lords had recently refused to introduce such a substantial implied term, it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to do so.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Dyson LJ, Thomas LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 293, Times 29-Mar-2004, Gazette 08-Apr-2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .

Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.196573

J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd (The “Miss Jay Jay”): CA 1987

The owner claimed for damage to the hull of the Jay Jay.
Held: Where there are two operative causes, one covered by the policy risks and one not, then provided that the second cause is not an excluded peril, the Assured can recover. There was only one loss and the total repair bill for the hull had to be paid by the insurer.
A loss may be said to be caused by perils of the sea even where the seastate is that which could reasonably have been expected. The words ‘proximate cause’ and ‘direct cause’ came to be used interchangeably, and there can be more than one proximate cause of loss.
Slade LJ
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32
Marine Insurance Act 1906 55(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd ‘The Miss Jay Jay’ 1985
Mustill J considered liability under a marine insurance where damage was suffered when the sea state was within what might reasonably be anticipated: ‘The cases make it quite plain that if the action of the wind or sea is the immediate cause of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.428479

HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Axa Corporate Solutions and Another: QBD 21 Dec 2001

Jules Sher QC J
[2001] EWHC 464 (QB), [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 325
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions CA 31-Jul-2002
The reinsured (HIH) claimed against its 80% quota share reinsurers (which include Axa) in respect of pecuniary loss indemnity insurance written by HIH to cover loss by the financiers of two slates of films. HIH had paid their insured over $31 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.331025

Wilson v Rankin: CEC 28 Nov 1865

The plaintiff, the owner of a ship, effected a policy on freight from a British port in North America to Liverpool. The ship sailed with a cargo of timber between the 1st of September and the 1st of May. The master, without the knowledge or privity of his owner, stowed a portion of the cargo on deck, and sailed without any certificate from a clearing officer that the whole cargo was below deck, contrary to 16 and 17 Vict. c. 107, ss. 170, 171, and 172. On a loss by perils insured against:
Held: That although the master had general authority from his owner to stow the cargo, no authority could be implied to load it so as to violate the statute, neither was it an act of the master which the owner must be presumed to have assented to; that the fact of the ship having sailed without the certificate did not render her unseaworthy at the commencement ,of her voyage so as to prevent the policy attaching, and, consequently, that the plaintiff was not precluded from recovering against the underwriter.
[1865] EngR 755, (1865) 6 B and S 208, (1865) 122 ER 1173, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 162, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 35
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.281667

HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions: CA 31 Jul 2002

The reinsured (HIH) claimed against its 80% quota share reinsurers (which include Axa) in respect of pecuniary loss indemnity insurance written by HIH to cover loss by the financiers of two slates of films. HIH had paid their insured over $31 million in settlement of their claims under this insurance but the reinsurers said that HIH were not liable and they were not liable under the reinsurance.
Tuckey, Carnwath LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1253, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1053
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Axa Corporate Solutions and Another QBD 21-Dec-2001
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Wheatley, Smith As Executors of Henry Thomas Cadbury-Brown v King LRA 30-Nov-2011
LRA Estoppel – Exercise of options – whether defect waived – ‘The Kanchenjunga’ [1990] Lloyds Law Reports 391 – Peyman v Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.188941

Strive Shipping Corporation and Another v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd: ComC 25 Mar 2002

Grecia Express

[2002] EWHC 203 (Comm), [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 669, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 213, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AXA General Insurance Limited v Gottlieb CA 11-Feb-2005
The defendant made a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer made an interim payment, but then asserted that the claim was fraudulent, and sought recovery of the interim payment.
Held: At common law, fraud in an insurance claim, once . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.171175

Global Process Sytems Inc and Another v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad: ComC 31 Mar 2009

The Cendor MOPU

The insurance company had refused a claim after the failure of an oil rig, saying that the loss of the rig legs during transit was the inevitable consequence of the voyage, and that since insurance was against risks, not certainties, they were under no liability for the loss of the legs.
Held: The insurer’s argument was rejected, concluding ‘that the failure of the legs as this rig was towed round the Cape was very probable, but it was not inevitable.’ and ‘a developed crack would not, on its own, have been sufficient to cause one of the legs to come off. That required in addition a ‘leg breaking’ or ‘final straw’ stress that finally fractured the weakened steel. As Mr Colman [one of the experts called at the trial] put it, ‘you’ve got to catch it just right, if you want to make it actually fail all the way round.” The insurers had proved that ‘the proximate cause of the loss was the fact that the legs were not capable of withstanding the normal incidents of the insured voyage from Galveston to Lumut, including the weather reasonably to be expected.’ Accordingly, the cause of the loss was inherent vice within the meaning of the policy and the insurers were not liable for the claim.
Blair J
[2009] EWHC 637 (Comm), [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 72, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 795, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 511
Bailii
Marine Insurance Act 1906 55(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad CA 17-Dec-2009
An oil rig suffered major damage in transit in rough seas. The insurers repudiated liability saying that the damages was the result of a natural vice rather than perils at sea.
Held: The fact that the sea conditions were within the range of . .
At first instance – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 August 2021; Ref: scu.328003

Sehayek and Another v Amtrust Europe Ltd: TCC 5 Mar 2021

Trial of preliminary issues.
[2021] EWHC 495 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 August 2021; Ref: scu.663149

Axa Versicherung Ag v Arab Insurance Group: CA 28 Feb 2017

The appellant challenged an order saying that a reinsurer to whom an unfair presentation of the risk was made had failed to establish that he would have declined the risk if a fair presentation had been made to him by the reinsured.
Arden, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 96
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.577493

Axa Versicherung Ag v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): ComC 7 Jul 2015

The Court was asked whether the claimant reinsurer (‘Axa’) is entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties entered into with the defendant reinsured (‘Arig’) and to recover in consequence the net sum of about US $5.15 million paid to Arig under those two treaties.
Males J
[2015] EWHC 1939 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.550067

Nishina Trading Co Ltd v Chiyoda Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Mandarin Star): CA 1968

The ship owners had not been paid two months of charter hire due to them, so the master took the cargo. The cargo did not belong to the defaulting charterer, however, but rather to an innocent third party. The insurance clause provided that ‘it is hereby agreed that this policy covers the risk of theft’.
Held: On the facts, the act of the ship master acting on the request of his masters, was not theft. the ship owners did not sell the cargo but raised money on it by way of mortgage. They may have had an honest but mistaken belief that they had some sort of lien on the cargo for their charter hire. If they honestly thought that they had a right to do what they did, no ordinary person would call it ‘theft’.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The word ‘theft’ is not used here in the strict sense of the criminal law. It does not bring in all the eccentricities of the law of larceny. It means only what an ordinary commercial man would consider to be theft: and before finding theft, the court should be satisfied that it is an appropriate description of what took place. The court need not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (as in the criminal law) but it should find on balance that there is sufficient to warrant the serious imputation of ‘theft’.’
Edmund Davies LJ held that the ‘persons acting maliciously’ peril was inapplicable on the facts.
Phillimore LJ observed that the clause was ‘obviously intended to deal with damage effected in the course of some civil disturbance’.
Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies LJ, Phillimore LJ
[1968] 1 WLR 1325, [1969] 2 QB 449, [1969] 2 All ER 776
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666166

Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The “Salem”): CA 1982

The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to Shell, whose interest was insured with the defendant and other insurers for some USD56m. Instead of performing the chartered voyage, the conspirators procured the tanker to enter Durban, where most of its cargo (some 180,000 mt) was discharged and delivered to the South African Strategic Fuel Fund Association in return for payment to the conspirators of a price of over USD32m. They then took the vessel to sea again with a residue of the cargo (some 15,000 mt), and had her scuttled to conceal what had happened.
Lord Denning said: ‘The judge held ante that the crooks were not acting maliciously, i.e. out of spite, ill will or the like, but for their own gain. The judge’s ruling on this point was accepted by Shell.’
and: ‘In this case ‘the destination specified in the policy’ was North Europe. That was the destination specified as the place to which the cargo was to be carried.
On the facts as I see them, instead of ‘sailing for’ that destination, the ship ‘sailed for’ Durban. As soon as she moved off from Mina al Ahmadi (Kuwait) her Master intended to take her to Durban and discharge the oil there. Durban was the place to which the shipowners and the Master intended to carry the oil and deliver it there.
… Shell never relied on the ‘held covered’ clause and never gave notice of it to the underwriters. They did this for tactical reasons – because they did not want to concede that the vessel ever sailed for Durban. Their case was that she sailed for North Europe and afterwards changed course for Durban. If they had conceded that she had sailed for Durban, they would have been defeated by section 44.’
Kerr LJ, Lord Denning MR, May LJ
[1982] QB 946
Marine Insurance Act 1906 44
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) QBD 1981
Conspirators disposed of a cargo of oil dishonestly, in South Africa, in breach of sanctions and with a view to profit. Mustill J. considered whether this loss was caused by persons acting maliciously, that is out of spite or ill-will or the like. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666170

Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd: CA 1941

MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine Insurance’. The truth is that this law of marine insurance is nothing more than a collection of rules for the construction of the ancient form of policy and such additions as are from time to time annexed to it. The ancient form dates back at least to the sixteenth century, and it is a document which the late Sir Frederick Pollock characterized, with justifiable asperity, as ‘clumsy, imperfect, and obscure’. Many of the imperfections and obscurities had to be resolved by Lord Mansfield, with the assistance of his famous special juryman. A striking example of his task in that respect is Lewis v Rucker [(1971) [1761] EngR 46; 2 Burr 1167]. The question arose of the proper method of assessing a particular average loss of goods. The obvious thing would be to see what the contract of the parties provided, but it provided nothing whatever. The assured put forward one method of assessment; the underwriters put forward another. Lord Mansfield decided for the latter, saying: ‘The special jury, amongst whom there were many knowing and considerable merchants, found the defendant’s rule of estimation to be right, and gave their verdict for him. They understood the position very well, and knew more of the subject of it than anybody else present.’ The rule so settled is now embodied in s 71 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1906. But, in truth, it is an implied term in the old form of policy, added to its imperfect expression by the practice of assured and underwriters as found by the knowing and considerable merchants in 1761.
Innumerable clauses have from time to time been devised to supplement the ancient form. Unhappily tradition seems to have caused them also in very many cases to be ‘clumsy, imperfect, and obscure’, and the fact that Arnould’s work now covers 1800 pages is largely the result of that tradition. Oddly enough, the tradition has even infected the Legislature with a microbe of inaccuracy. In 1746 an Act (19 Geo 2 c 37) was passed which made re-insurance illegal, except in the case where ‘the assurer shall be insolvent, become a bankrupt, or die’. It is inconceivable that an insolvent underwriter should desire to re-insure, and obviously the evil aimed at was double insurance by the assured. ‘Re-insurance’, however, had then its present well known meaning, and the draughtsman of the Act used the wrong word in order to maintain the tradition of obscurity.
I hope this irrelevant exordium is venial . .’
MacKinnon LJ
[1941] 1 KB 225
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd HL 1942
Lord Wright explained: ‘There is a real difference in logic between saying that a future happening is uncertain and saying that it is unlikely. In the former, the balance is even. No one can say one way or the other. In the latter, there is some . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666167

In re Etherington and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Co: CA 8 Feb 1909

By the terms of a policy an accident insurance company undertook, if, at any time during the continuance of the said policy, the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external, and visible means, then, in case such injury should, within three calendar months from the occurrence of the accident causing such injury, directly cause the death of the insured, to pay to the legal personal representatives of the insured the capital sum of 1000l. The policy contained the following proviso: ‘Provided always and it is hereby as the essence of the contract agreed as follows: that this policy only insures against death where accident within the meaning of the policy is the direct or proximate cause thereof, but not where the direct or proximate cause thereof is disease or other intervening cause, even although the disease or other intervening cause may itself have been aggravated by such accident, or have been due to weakness or exhaustion consequent thereon, or the death accelerated thereby.’
The assured, while hunting, had a heavy fall, and, the ground being very wet, he was wetted to the skin. The effect of the shock and the wetting was to lower the vitality of his system, and being obliged to ride home afterwards, while wet, still further lowered his vitality. The effect of this lowering of his vitality was to cause the subsequent development of pneumonia in his lungs, of which he died. The pneumonia was not septic or traumatic, but arose as a direct and natural consequence from the fact that the diminution of vitality caused through the accident, as above mentioned, allowed the germs called ‘pneumococci,’ which in small numbers are generally present in the respiratory passages, to multiply greatly and attack the lungs.
Held: affirming the judgment of Channell J., that the death of the assured was directly caused by accident within the meaning of the
policy, and that the case did not come within the proviso therein, and the company were consequently liable on the policy.
[1909] 1 KB 591, [1909] UKLawRpKQB 37
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666173

Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corpn v Wright (The “Anita”): 1970

Mocatta J
[1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666169

Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd: HL 1942

Lord Wright explained: ‘There is a real difference in logic between saying that a future happening is uncertain and saying that it is unlikely. In the former, the balance is even. No one can say one way or the other. In the latter, there is some balance against the event. It is true that there is nothing in the Act to show what degree of unlikelihood is required. If on the test of uncertainty the scales are level, any degree of unlikelihood would seem to shift the balance, however slightly.’
Lord Wright
(1942) AC 50
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd CA 1941
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666168

Brough v Whitmore: 11 Feb 1791

Provisions sent out in a ship for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and furniture.
Buller J
[1791] EngR 1296, (1791) 4 TR 206, (1791) 100 ER 976
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.362811

Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (The Anita): CA 1971

The burden is on Underwriters to bring themselves within an exclusion clause they seek to rely on.
Lord Denning distinguished between what might be described as justified or ‘connected’ political interference on the one hand and unjustified or unconnected interference on the other: ‘Yet again, if there were evidence of political interference with the course of justice – so that the court acted on the instructions of the politicians and not on its own judgment – it might be different. I can conceive of some instructions which would not render the confiscation invalid. For instance, if the government were to say to the court: ‘Smuggling is very prevalent and serious. The penalties should be more severe’: there would be nothing sinister in it. But, if there was direct intervention by politicians commanding the court to confiscate the vessel, without any foundation for it, then, of course, the loss would not be covered: because the confiscation would not be by reason of customs regulations, but by reason of the political interference.’
Lord Denning MR
[1971] 1 Loyd’s Rep 487, [1971] 1 WLR 882
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.181624

Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The “Salem”): QBD 1981

Conspirators disposed of a cargo of oil dishonestly, in South Africa, in breach of sanctions and with a view to profit. Mustill J. considered whether this loss was caused by persons acting maliciously, that is out of spite or ill-will or the like. He decided that it was not: ‘the cargo was not lost because the conspirators desired to harm either the goods or their owner. The loss was simply a by-product of an operation carried out for the purposes of gain.’
Mustill J
[1982] QB 946
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) CA 1982
The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666171

Cory v Burr: HL 30 Apr 1883

In a time policy of marine insurance on ship the ordinary perils insured against (including ‘ barratry of the master ‘) were enumerated, and the ship was warranted ‘free from capture and seizure and the consequences of any attempts thereat.’ In consequence of the barratrous act of the master in smuggling, the ship was seized by Spanish revenue officers, and proceedings were taken to procure her condemnation and confiscation. In an action on the policy to recover expenses incurred by the owner in obtaining her release, it was argued that the master’s barratrous smuggling was the cause of the vessel’s loss, rather than the capture or seizure or its consequences from which the vessel was warranted free by the FC and S clause.
Held: affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, that the loss must be imputed to ‘ capture and seizure ‘ and not to the barratry of the master, and that the underwriter was not liable. There is no question of dismissing a vessel’s capture and detainment in such circumstances as a mere incident of, or sequela to, an underlying cause such as barratry.
The Earl of Selborne viewed such a construction of the policy and the warranty taken together as ‘leading to consequences altogether destructive of the whole operation of the warranty’
Lord Blackburn said that it was true that the insurance had not been warranted free from barratry, but went on: ‘the barratry would itself occasion no loss at all to the parties insured. If it had not been that the Spanish revenue officers, doing their duty (they were quite right in that respect), had come and seized the ship, the barratry of the captain, in coasting along there, hovering as we should call it along the coast, in order that the small smuggling vessel might come and take the tobacco, would have done the assured no harm at all. The underwriters do undertake to indemnify against barratry; they do undertake to indemnify against any loss which is directly sustained in consequence of the barratry; and in this case, as I said before, I think the seizure was as direct a consequence of the barratry as could well be. But still, . . it was the seizure which brought the loss into existence – it was a case of seizure. Then why should it not be protected by this warranty?’
Lord Bramwell noted the argument that the loss was not from the seizure but in truth from the barratry, and the ‘ingeniously’ made suggestion that the seizure was ‘an intermediate step’, and responded: ‘But it was the ultimate and final step which occasioned the loss’
Lord Fitzgerald, after observing that barratry ‘may be either harmless or effect but a small loss’ put the question: ‘By what was the loss occasioned? I apprehend that there can be but one answer to this question, namely, that the loss arose from the seizure. There was no loss occasioned by the act of barratry. The barratry created a liability to forfeiture or confiscation, but might in itself be quite harmless; but the seizure, which was the effective act towards confiscation, and the direct and immediate cause of the loss, was not because the act of the master was an act of barratry but that it was a violation of the revenue laws of Spain.’
Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Blackburn, Lord Bramwell, Lord Fitzgerald
1882-1883) 8 App Cas 393, [1883] UKLawRpAC 22
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.666172

Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd: CA 1973

The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the insurer liability for something which is within the exception.’ and Roskill LJ said: ‘if the loss is caused by two causes operating at the same time and one is wholly expressly excluded from the Policy, the Policy does not pay.’
Lord Justice Cairns, Roskill LJ, Lord Denning MR
[1974] 1 QB 57, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 237
Marine Insurance Act 1906 55(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kiriacoulis Lines Sa v Compagnie D’Assurances Maritime Aeriennes Et Terrestres (Camat) and Another (‘The Demetra K’) CA 16-Jul-2002
The court set out the elements to be satisfied before ordering a rectification of a commercial contract, in particular, the need for an antecedent agreement with outward expression of a common intent, and convincing evidence sufficient to discharge . .
Dicta applied – J J Lloyd Instruments Limited v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd; The Miss Jay Jay CA 1987
The insurers insured against an adverse sea but not against defective manufacture or design. Both were found to be proximate causes of the loss.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judge that the owners could claim under the . .
Dictum applied – The Aliza Glazial CA 2002
. .
Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
Cited – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .
Cited – Petroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.200214

North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others: ComC 22 Apr 2005

[2005] EWHC 665 (Comm), [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 76, [2005] 2 CLC 238
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – North Star Shipping Ltd. and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 27-Oct-2004
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others CA 7-Apr-2006
A claim was made under a marine insurance policy for damage caused to a vessel by an explosion. Underwriters alleged that they were entitled to avoid the policies for (inter alia) non-disclosure of the existence of criminal proceedings in Greece . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.224563

Melinda Holdings Sa v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd: ComC 18 Feb 2011

The claimant sought to assert its claim for payment under war risks insurance with the defendant after the insured ship was arrested and detained in Cairo.
Burton J
[2011] EWHC 181 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyds Rep 141
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.430289

Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda: SC 22 May 2018

The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from the insurers. The Court of Appeal had rejected the claim allowing the insurers to rely on an exclusion in the clauses relating to malicious acts by a third party.
Held: The ship-owners’ appeal failed. The acts complained of were not aimed at the owners, but at the ship, and that was the essential of the exclusion. ‘clause 1.5 is not apt to cover the present circumstances, and . . the premise on which this appeal reaches the Supreme Court is incorrect. ‘
Lord Mance (Deputy President), Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge and, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 26, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] WLR(D) 317, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 671, [2019] AC 136, [2018] 4 All ER 589, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2018] Lloyds Rep IR 448
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC 180320 am Hearing, SC 180320 pm Hearing, SC Summary Video, WLRD
Institute War and Strikes Clauses 1/10/83 with additional perils, cls 1.5, 4.1.5
England and Wales
Citing:
Preliminary Issues ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 29-Mar-2012
Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at . .
At ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 8-Dec-2014
The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detained after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuela by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss.
Held: The owners were entitled to recover . .
At CA – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2016
(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason . .
Cited – Nishina Trading Co Ltd v Chiyoda Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Mandarin Star) CA 1968
The ship owners had not been paid two months of charter hire due to them, so the master took the cargo. The cargo did not belong to the defaulting charterer, however, but rather to an innocent third party. The insurance clause provided that ‘it is . .
Cited – Brough v Whitmore 11-Feb-1791
Provisions sent out in a ship for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and furniture. . .
Cited – Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd CA 1941
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine . .
Cited – Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corpn v Wright (The ‘Anita’) 1970
. .
Cited – Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (The Anita) CA 1971
The burden is on Underwriters to bring themselves within an exclusion clause they seek to rely on.
Lord Denning distinguished between what might be described as justified or ‘connected’ political interference on the one hand and unjustified or . .
Cited – Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) QBD 1981
Conspirators disposed of a cargo of oil dishonestly, in South Africa, in breach of sanctions and with a view to profit. Mustill J. considered whether this loss was caused by persons acting maliciously, that is out of spite or ill-will or the like. . .
Cited – Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) CA 1982
The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to . .
Cited – North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 22-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .
Cited – Allen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
Mentioned – Regina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .
Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Cited – Cory v Burr HL 30-Apr-1883
In a time policy of marine insurance on ship the ordinary perils insured against (including ‘ barratry of the master ‘) were enumerated, and the ship was warranted ‘free from capture and seizure and the consequences of any attempts thereat.’ In . .
Cited – In re Etherington and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Co CA 8-Feb-1909
By the terms of a policy an accident insurance company undertook, if, at any time during the continuance of the said policy, the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external, and visible means, then, in case such . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Cited – Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos) 1949
The ship had been chartered, but the crew refused to sail without an escort, in war conditions. The charterer sought to be excused liability under a clause making allowance for ‘insufficiency of crew’.
Held: The presumption against surplusage . .
Cited – Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 1973
The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .
Cited – Handelsbanken v Dandridge and others CA 30-Apr-2002
The Aliza Glacial
Construction of two standard clauses in the Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls-Time, 1983 edition. Potter LJ treated the vessel’s loss, following the owners’ refusal to meet an outrageous ransom demand by a terrorist organisation, as outside . .
Cited – Melinda Holdings Sa v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to assert its claim for payment under war risks insurance with the defendant after the insured ship was arrested and detained in Cairo. . .
Cited – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.616316

North Star Shipping Ltd. and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others: ComC 27 Oct 2004

Colman J
[2004] EWHC 2457 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 22-Apr-2005
. .
See Also – North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others CA 7-Apr-2006
A claim was made under a marine insurance policy for damage caused to a vessel by an explosion. Underwriters alleged that they were entitled to avoid the policies for (inter alia) non-disclosure of the existence of criminal proceedings in Greece . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.218878

Atlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others: ComC 8 Dec 2014

The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detained after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuela by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss.
Held: The owners were entitled to recover from insurers. The cause of the vessel’s loss was the malicious act of unknown third parties in attaching the drugs to the hull, and the exclusion of detainment, etc ‘by reason of infringement of any customs . . regulations’ in clause 4.1.5 was to be read as subject to an implied limitation where the only reason for such infringement was such an act.
Flaux J
[2014] EWHC 4133 (Comm), [2015] All ER (Comm) 439, [2015] CN 59
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Preliminary Issues – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 29-Mar-2012
Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at . .

Cited by:
At ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2016
(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason . .
At ComC – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.539960

CVG Siderurgicia del Orinoco SA v London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited ‘The Vainqueur Jose’: 1979

The plaintiff sought to claim under the rules of the P and I club of which it was a member. After defining the risks in respect of which members were to be indemnified, the rules made the following proviso in Rule 8(k): ‘A member shall at the discretion of the Committee, be liable to have a deduction made from any claim where the Committee shall be of opinion that the Member has not taken such steps to protect his interests as he would have done if the ship had not been entered in this class. This deduction shall be of such an amount as the Committee in its discretion shall decide.’
Held: Whenever a discretion is afforded to a party by contract it is an implied term that it must not be exercised unreasonably. The common law principles applicable to the exercise of a contractual discretion include fairness, reasonableness, bona fides and absence of misdirection in law.
Mocatta J said: ‘Where, as here, the success or failure of a claim depends upon the exercise of a discretion by a lay body, it would be a mistake to expect the same expert, professional and almost microscopic investigation of the problems, both factual and legal, that is demanded of a suit in a Court of law’.
and ‘To the exercise of such discretion the common law principles must apply and these undoubtedly include fairness, reasonableness, bona fides and absence of misdirection in law’
‘The next point of law arising is whether a deduction of 100 per cent or any other lesser figure that cannot be shown at least approximately to amount to the quantum of claim that would or might have been avoided had the member acted as a prudent uninsured owner can be deducted. Would such ill-founded deduction be invalid as being a penalty? I confess it came as a surprise to me to hear [counsel] argue that the penalty doctrine had any place in English law other than in connection with the question whether a clause in a contract providing for payment by the party in breach of an agreed sum was a genuine pre-estimate of pecuniary loss or was included as a term in terrorem and, therefore, unenforceable as a penalty. The authority upon which [counsel] relied was Gilbert Ash . . Having given this recent authority careful consideration, I am unable to take the view that it has any application here or to insurance law generally. Here the Committee is given a complete discretion under r. 8(k) . . and while they must comply with the general principles applicable to the exercise of such discretions previously discussed, in my opinion they cannot be faulted on the basis of the law against penalties if they decide . . to make a deduction of 100 per cent under r. 8(k) . . One may further ask how is the penalty argument to be reconciled with the rules in insurance law about warranties . . which must be complied with whether material or not, or about non-disclosure of material facts . . where the insurers may avoid the contract although the fact not disclosed, and quite innocently, has no causal relation to the loss in respect of which indemnity is sought? Apart from insurance law, there are innumerable cases in the books where a defendant, because, for example, of a sudden fall in the market price of a commodity or of freight or hire rates, rescinds the contract on the basis of the breach of a condition precedent, thereby causing heavy loss to the other party, who is left without a remedy, whereas the breach of the condition precedent has of itself caused no loss or damage to the party relying upon it.’
Mocatta J
[1979] 1 Lloyds Rep 557
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:
Cited – First National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .
Cited – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd SC 18-Mar-2015
The claimant’s husband had been lost from the defendant’s ship at sea. The defendant had contracted to pay compensation unless the loss was by suicide. They so determined. The court was now asked whether that was a permissible conclusion in the . .
Cited – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Others CA 22-Mar-2013
The claimant widow sued in negligence after the disappearance overboard of her husband from the respondent’s ship. The court had found insufficient evidence to establish the cause of death, either as to negligence as suggested by the claimant, or as . .
Cited – Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd CA 22-Feb-2008
Rix LJ considered the restraints operating a party to a contract in exercising any discretion gien under it, preferring the use of the term ‘irrationality’ to ‘unreasonableness’: ‘It is plain from these authorities that a decision-maker’s discretion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.198398

Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others: CA 24 Jan 2003

(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. The crew were ultimately acquitted of any involvement, but the vessel’s detainment lasted so long that she could be and was declared a constructive total loss under clause 3. The insurance policy incorporated standard provisions which excluded cover for ‘loss damage arising from detainment by reason of infringement of any customs or trading regulations.’ The ship was detained and the insurers refused payment.
Held: The term ‘customs regulations’, in a marine insurance law, had to be construed widely enough to include rules allowing the detention of a ship for contravention of controlled drugs and other prohibited goods laws.
Clarke LJ described the Hooley Hill Rubber principle as: ‘essentially a principle of construction. Thus the court is trying to ascertain the intention of the parties in using the expression deployed in the contract. Where a contract has been professionally drawn, as in the case of the Institute Clauses, the draftsman is certain to have in mind decisions of the courts on earlier editions of the clause. Such decisions are part of the context or background circumstances against which the particular contract falls to be construed. If the draftsman chooses to adopt the same words as previously construed by the courts, it seems to me to be likely that, other things being equal, he intends that the words should continue to have the same meaning.’
Mr Justice Scott Baker, Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Times 03-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 12, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 586, [2003] 1 LLR 138, [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 349
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Limited, C N R Atkin ComC 27-Feb-2002
A claim was made under a marine insurance policy. The policy incorporated the Institute War and Strikes Clauses, Hulls-Time of 1/10/83, and included a clause ‘loss damage . . arising from . . Detainment . . by reason of infringement of any customs . .
Cited – Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (The Anita) CA 1971
The burden is on Underwriters to bring themselves within an exclusion clause they seek to rely on.
Lord Denning distinguished between what might be described as justified or ‘connected’ political interference on the one hand and unjustified or . .
Cited – Re Hooley Hill Rubber and Royal Insurance Co CA 1920
When interprting a contract, it is assumed that the draftsman works with a view to certainty of sense and standardisation of terms. Bankes LJ said: ‘Courts should be chary in interfering with the interpretation given to a well-known document and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
Cited – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.178796

Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others: CA 1 Aug 2016

(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason of infringement of any customs . . regulations’
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no foundation for the implied limitation. Clause 4.1.5 operated to exclude liability.
Laws, Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2016] EWCA Civ 808, [2016] WLR(D) 456, [2016] 2 CLC 349, [2017] 1 WLR 1303, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 565, [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 351, [2017] 1 All ER (Comm) 401
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Preliminary Issues ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 29-Mar-2012
Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at . .
At ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 8-Dec-2014
The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detaiined after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuala by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss. . .

Cited by:
At CA – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties, Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.567828

Lord Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles and Gill (A Firm) and Others: ChD 28 Oct 2020

The claimants had been clients of the defendant solicitors former firmer. A partner of the defendants had stolen large sums of money in the names of the claimants from the firm’s client account. The defendants themselves were not said to have been in any way party to the thefts. Some thefts predated the claim by more than six years and the defendants sought to rely on limitation law as a defence.
Held: The partners, though innocent could not rely on limitation as requested.
His Honour Judge Saffman
[2020] EWHC 2809 (Ch)
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Moore v Knight ChD 18-Dec-1890
The court considered the liability of partners in a solicitors’ firm for embezzlement of client money by an employee of the firm. Once the true position became known, after many years, the client sued the surviving partners, who relied on . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.655613

Avon Insurance Plc and Others v Swire Fraser Ltd: ComC 20 Jan 2000

Rix J
[2000] CLC 665, [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 573, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 535, [2000] EWHC 230 (Comm)
Bailii
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.441760

Woolwich Building Society v Brown: QBD 22 Jan 1996

Mortgage indemnity policies are for benefit of mortgagee not mortgagor.
Ind Summary 22-Jan-1996
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.90599

BMT Marine and Offshore Survey Ltd v Lloyd Werft Bremerhaven Gmbh: ComC 24 Jan 2011

Simon J
[2011] EWHC 32 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.428240

Beazley Underwriting Ltd and Others v The Travelers Companies Incorporated: ComC 17 Jun 2011

Christopher Clarke J
[2011] EWHC 1520 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.440893

Lucena v Craufurd: HL 29 Jun 1808

Commissioners were authorized by a commission granted in pursuance of a statute, to take into their possession ships and goods belonging to subjects of the United Provinces, which had been or might be detained in or brought into the ports of this kingdom, and to manage, sell, and dispose of the same to the best advantage, according to such instructions as they should receive from the king in council; before any declaration of war against the United Provinces, one of his majesty’s ships took several Dutch East Indiamen, and carried them into St. Helena. The commissioners, with the assent of the Lords of the Treasury, insured them at and from St. Helena to London. War was soon after declared against the United Provinces, and the ships were finally condemned as prize to his majesty, ‘as having belonged, when taken, to subjects of the United Provinces, since became enemies.’ Upon a loss happening, the commissioners declared on the policy, and averred the interest to be in the king, and held that the action well lay.
[1808] EngR 262, (1808) 1 Taunt 325, (1808) 127 ER 858
Commonlii
Marine Insurance Act 1745
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lucena v Craufurd CEC 1802
Enemy ships which had been captured were insured for their return to England. A claim arose. The insurance provider said that the claim failed under the 1745 Act as a wager since the claimant had no insurable interest in the ships.
Held: . .
See Also – Lucena v Craufurd HL 1806
Before the declaration of war, against the United Provinces, His Majesty’s ships took possession of several ships belonging to Dutch East India men, and took them to St Helena. The Commissioners then insured the ships for their journey from St . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.238201

Tioxide Europe Limited v CGU International Insurance Plc and others: QBD 23 Sep 2004

Claim under two excess global liability policies for indemnity against its liability for the ‘pinking’ of UPVC products manufactured and sold by others which included in their formulation a titanium dioxide pigment supplied by Tioxide. Excess layer insurance policies.
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
[2004] EWHC 2116 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Tioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc and others CA 20-Jul-2005
The court considered how an insurance contract should be construed. Langley J said: ‘The general principle is that the proper construction is to be determined by the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in the contractual and commercial . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.214301

Ukegheson v Gresham Insurance Company Ltd and Others: ComC 9 Nov 2020

Application for summary judgment made by the Defendants seeking to strike out all but one limb of the Claimant’s claim, and to reduce the amount of that claim very substantially. The First Defendant provided home insurance to the Claimant, which included legal expenses insurance, the Second Defendant administered that insurance on behalf of the First Defendant, and the Third Defendant was an employee of the Second Defendant.
Hancock QC HHJ
[2020] EWHC 2903 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.657594

Sharp v Sphere Drake Insurance plc (The Moonacre): 1992

S, a retired businessman, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. In the winter, the boat was laid up, but occupied by a workman who maintained it and kept it secure. 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. They also argued that it was used as a houseboat which was covered by an exclusion, and further that there had been non-disclosure on renewal of a theft from the boat, and that the signature on the application had been misrepresented as that of the insured.
Held: The insurance claim was dismissed. The theft was not sufficiently serious to necessitate disclosure. The false signature would have undermined the claim.
The boat was off-risk whilst being used as a houseboat, even if by a crew member.
The broker was liable to S, as it was the professional duty of a non-specialist broker to advise that the underwriters be told if anyone was living in the vessel and the broke should not have provided the misleading signature.
The 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).
Mr A D Colman QC
[1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 501, [1993] CLY 3614
Marine Insurance Act 1906 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Limited HL 1925
Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company also owed him substantial sums. He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. When he came to claim, his . .

Cited by:
Cited – Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .
Approved – Glengate-KG Properties Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd and Others CA 12-Jan-1996
NU the insurer of a consequential loss insurance policy, appealed against the decision, on a claim brought by G, the owners of a property under redevelopment, which had suffered a fire as to G’s resultant loss of rental income from the property. The . .
Cited – GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd v CMM Trust No.1400 (the ‘Newfoundland Explorer’) AdCt 22-Mar-2006
The owner sought to claim under his insurance policy. The yacht was, in the policy warranted to be fully crewed at all times. The owner had left the boat to return a few hours later when it was found on fire.
Held: The insurance claim failed. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.184481

North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others: CA 7 Apr 2006

A claim was made under a marine insurance policy for damage caused to a vessel by an explosion. Underwriters alleged that they were entitled to avoid the policies for (inter alia) non-disclosure of the existence of criminal proceedings in Greece against the brothers who owned the company which owned the vessel in question. The insured said there was no basis to the charges. Reliance was sought to be placed on a letter written by the Serious Fraud Office, stating that it regarded the allegations as fraudulent.
Held: Waller Lj: ‘The law in this area is, as others have recognised, capable of producing serious injustice. If every false allegation of dishonesty must be disclosed in all types of insurance that may place some insureds in the position of finding it difficult to obtain cover at all, and will certainly expose them to having the rates of premium increased unfairly. I do not myself see it as a practical answer to say that exculpatory material can be produced, because unless the material is such as to prove beyond peradventure that the allegation is false, in which event the allegation seems to me no longer material, an underwriter is not likely to be prepared to take time sorting out the strength or otherwise of the allegation. In many instances he would be likely to take the view there is no smoke without fire and turn the placement down or at the very least rate the policy to take account of the allegation. Furthermore the decision in Drake may provide an answer in some but very few cases, and in any event does not seem to provide a remedy for the increased premium that an insured may have had to pay on the basis of a false allegation.
All that said, it does not seem to me that what must be disclosed can be defined as a matter of law in the way that Mr Goldstone would have us do and in a way which I might have been tempted to follow. It is a matter of evidence what is a material circumstance and, as the headnote in Pan Atlantic v Pinetop accurately records, a ‘material circumstance’ is one that would have an effect on the mind of a prudent insurer in estimating the risk and it is not necessary that it should have a decisive effect on his acceptance of the risk or the amount of premium to be paid.
Expert evidence is called to guide the court as to what would influence the judgment of an underwriter. The only way that, under the present state of the law, the obligation of disclosure in this area of moral hazard can be confined is either by underwriters giving evidence that they would not be influenced and would not take into account an allegation of dishonesty, or by a robust judge rejecting an underwriter’s evidence that he would take it into account. Spent convictions no longer have to be disclosed, and old allegations of dishonesty or allegations of not very serious dishonesty, one would hope, expert underwriters would not suggest would influence the judgment of prudent underwriters. But it is unreal to contemplate as a general proposition that underwriters as expert witnesses would ever give evidence that a prudent underwriter would not take into account in assessing the risk or the terms of the insurance a recent allegation of serious dishonesty the truth or falsity of which has yet to be determined, even if it is quite unconnected with insurance or the risk being insured. Furthermore it is difficult to see a judge not accepting that evidence.’
The Hon Mr Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Walker
[2006] EWCA Civ 378, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep IR 519
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Norwich Union Insurance Ltd v Meisels and Another QBD 9-Nov-2006
The claimants sought payment for water damage under their policies. The insurer alleged non-disclosure. The judge had found the claimants to be honest, and criticised the defendants witnesses. The claimants had been involved in companies which had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.240137

Sphere Drake Insurance plc and Another v Basler Versicherungs-Gesellschaft; The Orion Insurance Company plc v Basler Versicherungs Gesellschaft and Anr (Consolidated actions): ComC 29 Apr 1997

Insurance – agreement to limit liability – binding nature – discharge from further liability
Moore-Bick J
Unreported, 29/04/1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and Another v Orion Insurance Company Plc ComC 11-Feb-1999
ComC Multi-party run-off agreement made in 1975 to govern parties’ contributions towards run-off based on estimates of likely claims- asbestos-related claims led to final liabilities being vastly greater than . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.220773

Inversiones Manria SA v Sphere Drake Insurance Co. plc (The Dora): 1989

The court considered the relevance of moral hazard for an insurer accepting an insurance proposal: ‘When accepting a risk underwriters are properly influenced not merely by facts which, with hindsight, can be shown to have actually affected the risk but with facts that raise doubts about the risk’.
Phillips J
[1989] 1 LI LR 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Norwich Union Insurance Ltd v Meisels and Another QBD 9-Nov-2006
The claimants sought payment for water damage under their policies. The insurer alleged non-disclosure. The judge had found the claimants to be honest, and criticised the defendants witnesses. The claimants had been involved in companies which had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.245963