Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray: ComC 26 Jan 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Commercial 174

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Costs

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135799

Hayward v Norwich Union Insurance: CA 22 Feb 2001

An insurance policy which exempted the company from liability when a car was stolen was phrased to apply ‘while the keys had been left in the car’ The claimant had been subject to a robbery whilst in the car, and been obliged to get out. The car was stolen. The court at first instance had construed the clause as including a requirement that the car be unattended. On appeal it was held that there was no possibility of importing such a condition. The clause was clear and had a clear and sensible purpose. . . . insurance policies are contracts to which the general rules of construction of contracts apply and that the starting point is that words are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning as understood from the background against which the words were used or the meaning which the document would convey to the reasonable man.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 243, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMalekout v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc CA 3-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim under a Personal Retirement Policy. The issue was as to his right to a waiver of contributions benefit from inception or at all. He had been a dentist, but suffered an injury which became progressively more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Consumer, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135558

Agnew (Suing On His Own Behalf and In a Representative Capacity on Behalf of all Members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 672, 79, 1023 and 590) and Others v Lansforsakringsbolagens A B: HL 17 Feb 2000

An action relating to misrepresentation before a contract of re-insurance is, within the Lugano Convention, an action relating to a contract, rather than to insurance. Accordingly the appropriate forum for any litigation was the place where the obligation under question was to be performed rather than that of the domicile of the defendant. The assumption that it was to be treated as insurance was understandable but not justified under historical analysis.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Woolf MR, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 7, [2000] 1 All ER 737, [2001] 1 AC 223

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAgnew and others v Lansforsakringsbolagens CA 31-Jul-1997
Conflict of laws. Re-insurers sought to invalidate a claim alleging misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Did the duty of disclosure continue after the contract was in place.
Evans LJ, dissenting said: ‘the reference in Article 5(1) to ‘the . .
CitedForsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General HL 1925
Viscount Cave LC said that ‘by a contract of reinsurance the reinsuring party insures the original insuring party against the original loss.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, International

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135308

Matalan Discount Club Limited v Tokensprire Properties Limited and Richmond Cladding Systems Limited: TCC 4 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Technology 449

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedMark 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.

Insurance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135416

Cook (A P ) v Financial Insurance Company Limited: HL 18 Jun 1998

The claimant sought payment under his insurance policy for a disability. The insurance company declined to pay, saying the injury predated the policy. He was a runner, but had had episodes of breathlessness and angina.
Held: He had visited his doctor for a related condition, but had not received treatment as described under the policy, and a diagnosis was only made after the policy took effect. (Browne Wilkinson and Jauncy dissenting). The word ‘condition’ could not be construed as including symptoms of a generalised kind, which might include any number of different diseases or none, and that the word ‘condition’ meant a medical condition recognised as such by doctors.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

[1998] UKHL 42, [1998] 1 WLR 1765

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMalekout v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc CA 3-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim under a Personal Retirement Policy. The issue was as to his right to a waiver of contributions benefit from inception or at all. He had been a dentist, but suffered an injury which became progressively more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135161

Baltic Insurance Group v Jordan Grand Prix Limited and Others and Quay Financial Software Limited and Others (By Counter Claim and One Other Action): HL 20 May 1998

The Brussels Convention requires an insurance company to commence a claim against an insured in the country in which it operates. This applies also to non-convention countries, and a counterclaim may not add a new party from another jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 17-Dec-1998, [1998] UKHL 49; [1999] 2 AC 127; [1999] 2 WLR 134; [1999] 1 All ER 289, [1999] 2 AC 127

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others CA 24-Oct-1997
A counterclaim by insurers had to be limited to the original defendants. There is no jurisdiction to join additional third parties who were not within the jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toJordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others CA 24-Oct-1997
A counterclaim by insurers had to be limited to the original defendants. There is no jurisdiction to join additional third parties who were not within the jurisdiction. . .
CitedDollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135152

Royal Boskalis Westminster NV and Ors v Trevor Rex Mountain and Others: ComC 18 Dec 1995

Marine insurance – assured – revocation of notice abandonment – before or after commencement of action – effect : Marine insurance – assured – declaration of intention not to make claim for total loss – recovery of property – effect : Marine insurance – ‘waived claim’ – recovery in sue and labour – English law – claim – valid and lawful contract – unenforceable – tainted by collateral contract or conduct – connection – Beresford and Bowmakers principles : illegality defence – relevance of foreign law – doctrine of Foster v Driscoll, Regazzoni v Sethia : Marine insurance – valid English agreement – reliance on collateral foreign agreement – infringement of public policy – Lemenda Trading principle – extension : Marine insurance Act 1906 – defences – section 41 – lawfulness of adventure : Marine Insurance Act 1906 – defences – section 55 – wilful misconduct : defence – section 78(1) – expenses properly incurred : Marine Insurance Act 1906 – duty of good faith – avoidance – section 17 – claims – scope – fraudulent claims : Marine insurance – doctrine of materiality – fraudulent claim – no additional test for materiality – implied term of forfeiture : Marine insurance – post-contractual duty of good faith – remedies.
Rix J said that abandonment of a ship is: ‘A cession or transfer of the ship to the underwriter, and of all his property and interest in it with all the claims that may arise from its ownership, and all the profits that may arise from it, including the freight then being earned. Its operation is as effectually to transfer the property of the ship to the underwriter as a sale for valuable consideration, so that of necessity it vests in the underwriter a chattel of more or less value, as the case may be.’ and
‘Normally, the assured must indicate his election to abandon by giving a notice of abandonment, which thus becomes a condition precedent to the right to claim a CTL (Section 62(1)), but exceptionally a notice of abandonment may be dispensed with (Section 62(7), (8), (9)). The underwriter is not obliged to accept the notice, and thus the abandonment, but if he does the abandonment is irrevocable (Section 62(6)). It seems to follow, as Atkinson J. held, [in PYSBE v. Beer] that an unaccepted notice of abandonment is revocable. An underwriter may pay the claim without accepting the abandonment: he is not obliged to take over a wreck, which may be a damnosa hereditas – see Allgemeine Versicherungs-Gesellschaft Helvetia v. Administrator of German Property [1931] 1 KB 672 at 687/88 per Scrutton L.J. If, however, he wishes, he is ‘entitled’ to take over the assured’s interest in the property (Section 63(1)). That is in any event the right of any underwriter who pays for a total loss, whether or not there is abandonment (Section 79, which repeats the language found in Section 63(1) to the effect that the insurer is entitled ‘to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject matter’).’
Rix J considered the effect of a falsehood in the claim. He said that the claim for sue and labour costs was entitled to succeed irrespective of the matters which the owners had concealed: ‘Whatever be the precise definition and ambit of the concept of a fraudulent claim, there was no such claim here. I am in the process of finding that the sue and labour claim was and is a good and valid claim. It is not a false or fraudulent claim. It is totally unlike those instances of fraudulent claim to be found in the authorities, such as claims in respect of deliberately self-inflicted or pretended losses, or claims in amounts which are knowingly or recklessly exaggerated: see, for instance, Goulstone v The Royal Insurance Co, (1858) 1 F and F 276, where, in the context of a claim for inter alia the loss of furniture whose value was exaggerated four-fold, Pollock CB glossed a fraudulent claim as one ‘wilfully false in any substantial particular’ at p 279; or Chapman v Pole, (1870) 22 LT 306, where again in the context of exaggerated value Cockburn, CJ spoke of one who ‘knowingly preferred a claim he knew to be false or unjust’ at p 307; or The Captain Panagos DP, [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470, where Mr Justice Evans defined a fraudulent claim as ‘one which is made on the basis that facts exist which constitute a loss by an insured peril, when to the knowledge of the assured those alleged facts are untrue’, at p 511. It seems to me that even if one assumed, for instance, that the representation over the existence of any record of the finalization agreement was made fraudulently, that would not make the claim in question a fraudulent claim within these definitions of that expression.’

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

Unreported, 18 December 1995, [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep LR 523

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 64(2) 41 55 78(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At ComCRoyal Boskalis Westminster NV and others v Mountain and others CA 28-Feb-1997
Effect of illegality on a contract.
Held: Reversed . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.185997

Agapitos and Another v Agnew and others: CA 6 Mar 2002

Insurers resisted a claim saying that fraudulent acts of the defendants to promote an otherwise valid claim, made the entire claim void. The insurance required certificates to be obtained before ‘hot’ works were undertaken as part of the ship’s maintenance. The established principle being that any attempt to boost a claim fraudulently would invalidate the entire policy and claim. Did this apply to the use of fraudulent devices rather than the claims themselves?
Held: The use of a fraudulent device to support an otherwise valid claim should be treated as a fraudulent claim. Once the parties are engaged in hostile litigation, the duty of good faith is replaced by the requirement to act in accordance with the rules of court. There is no effective distinction between the duration of impact of the fraudulent claim rule and any extension to the use of fraudulent devices to promote a claim, and the s.17 duty.
Mance LJ observed that there is a dearth of convincing authority either for or against the inclusion of fraudulent devices within the fraudulent claims rule.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mance, And Mr Justice Park

Citations:

Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 247, [2003] QB 556, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 714, [2002] 3 WLR 616

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
At ComCAgapitos and Another v Agnew and others ComC 24-Jul-2002
The common law principle governing fraudulent claims has a separate origin and existence to any principle that exists under or by analogy with s.17 of the Act. . .

Cited by:

CitedFairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.167732

K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd’s Policy 25T 1054 and Others: CA 31 Jul 2001

The owners of the ‘MERCANDIAN CONTINENT’ had obtained judgment in earlier High Court proceedings against a Trinidadian shipyard for damage caused by negligent repair work. Jurisdiction in the earlier proceedings had been founded on an agreed submission to the jurisdiction of the English court. The yard’s liability insurers appointed solicitors to conduct the defence on behalf of their insured. They had challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, relying in good faith on a document forged by the shipyard’s management, which suggested that the agreed submission had been made without authority. In due course the document was exposed as a forgery and the challenge to the jurisdiction was abandoned. The shipyard having gone into liquidation, the owners brought the current proceedings against the yard’s liability insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. The insurers defended the claim on the ground that they had lawfully avoided the policy because of the fraud of the insured ship repairer in relation to the question of jurisdiction.
For the 1906 Act, an insurer could not rely upon an act of fraud to avoid a policy, where that act only took place after the contract was concluded, unless the circumstances were so serious as to allow termination for breach of contract. The scope of the obligation of good faith has been developed, and not every breach of the uberrimae fides principle will allow an avoidance. The fraud after the contract was concluded would have to be such as would ultimately affect the insurer’s liability, in order to allow the section to bite. This will align the law of post-contract good faith with the insurer’s contractual remedies. Here, the fraud would not affect the insurer’s eventual liabilities.
Longmore LJ said: ‘In my judgment these requirements, which must exist before an underwriter can avoid for lack of good faith pre-contract, must also apply, making due allowance for the change of context, where an underwriter seeks to avoid for lack of good faith or fraud in relation to post-contractual matters. In particular the requirement of inducement which exists for pre-contract lack of good faith must exist in an appropriate form before an underwriter can avoid the entire contract for post-contract lack of good faith.’

Judges:

Robert Walker, Longmore LJJ, Carnwath J

Citations:

Times 03-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1275, [2001] 2 LLR 563, [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 802, [2001] CLC 1836

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 17, Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromK/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd’S Policy 25T 1054 87 and Others QBD 20-Jul-2000
The Insurers had avoided a policy after a claim had been brought, and the insured had produced a fraudulent document. Having won their case, the applicants sought to enforce the award against the insurers. The insurers were held not to be excused . .

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.162933

Chapman v Pole: 1870

In the context of exaggerated value Cockburn, CJ spoke of one who ‘knowingly preferred a claim he knew to be false or unjust’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1870) 22 LT 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623435

Black King Shipping Corpn and Wayang (Panama) SA v Massie (The “Litsion Pride”): 1985

The LITSION PRIDE was insured against war risks. The terms required of her owners, notice as soon as practicable of her entry into specified war zones and then to pay an additional premium. The owners traded her into a war zone without giving notice, dishonestly intending to avoid the payment of the additional premium if the vessel got out unscathed. When she was hit by a missile and sunk, they gave the required notice by a letter which they dishonestly backdated to a date before the vessel entered the war zone. The fraud was irrelevant to the merits of the claim, because the vessel was held to be insured under a held covered clause with or without prior notice.
Held: The claim was forfeit on the ground that it was a breach of the insured’s duty of good faith. His decision has not fared well in subsequent decisions.

Judges:

Hirst J

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
CitedManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623434

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trading Company of Chicago v Bathurst: 1985

O insured their vessel for 9 million dollars under a hull policy. P bank had agreed to advance money against a mortgage over the vessel. A loss payable clause in favour of the bank was in indorsed on the hull policy. In addition the bank entered into its own MI policy with D being an underwriter who insured the vessel for the bank in the sum of 6.85 million dollars. The vessel was lost and hull underwriters declined to pay, contending that the vessel was deliberately cast away. P brought an action under the MI policy. P admitted to liability but disputed quantum. The case turned on the meaning of the words ‘insured amount’ in the MI policy.
Held: 1)the value stated in the whole policy was irrelevant; 2) the policy was not a valued policy within the terms of section 27(2) of The Marine Insurance Act 1906 and 3) the measure of indemnity was to be ascertained by reference to her market value.

Judges:

Mustill J

Citations:

(1985) 1 Lloyds Rep 264

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623912

Reid and Co Ltd v Employer’s Accident and Livestock Insurance Co Ltd: 1899

The genuine part of a fraudulently inflated claim is recoverable.

Citations:

(1899) 1 F 1031

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623432

Wisenthal v World Auxiliary Insurance Corpn Ltd: 1930

A claim was made under an all risks policy on goods in transit and in storage pending sale. The insurers disputed the insured’s title and accused her of fraudulently exaggerating her claim. They also alleged that facts and documents relevant to these issues had been concealed.
Held: Roche J directed the jury: ‘Fraud, said his Lordship, was not mere lying. It was seeking to obtain an advantage, generally monetary, or to put someone else at a disadvantage by lies and deceit. It would be sufficient to come within the definition of fraud if the jury thought that in the investigation deceit had been used to secure easier or quicker payment of the money than would have been obtained if the truth had been told.’

Judges:

Roche J

Citations:

(1930) 38 L Rep 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623433

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co Of Chicago And Xenofon Maritime SA v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd: 1986

(‘The Captain Panagos DP’) The ship ran aground in the red sea. While aground it suffered a major fire. The owners submitted a claim on the basis that it was a total loss, or in the alternative, that they could recover a partial claim arising from each event. The underwriters said that each loss had been connived at or procured by the owners.
Held: The claim was rejected. The vessel had been deliberately run aground and then set on fire.
Evans J defined a fraudulent claim as ‘one which is made on the basis that facts exist which constitute a loss by an insured peril, when to the knowledge of the assured those alleged facts are untrue’.

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623436

Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd: CA 21 Mar 2014

Appeal against the dismissal of a claim against the Respondent insurers for an indemnity and damages arising out of a fire at claimant’s home – material misrepresentation and non-disclosure.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.522653

Hill and Another v Mercantile and General Reinsurance Co Plc: CA 25 Jul 1994

Re-insurers are bound by ‘follow settlement’ clause where the claim is within the risks covered.

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromHill and Others v Mercantile and General Reinsurance Co Plc; Berry and Others v Same HL 15-Aug-1996
Liability under reinsurance was not invalidated by a compromise including other claims. The parties to reinsurance contracts could set their own ways of proving the loss within a contract. A Full Reinsurance Clause is not binding in respect of any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.81375

K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd’S Policy 25T 1054 87 and Others: QBD 20 Jul 2000

The Insurers had avoided a policy after a claim had been brought, and the insured had produced a fraudulent document. Having won their case, the applicants sought to enforce the award against the insurers. The insurers were held not to be excused under the policy. The duty of good faith applied on matters up to the claim, but need not apply to all questions which arose after a claim had been validly made. The forged document did not demand that the insurers assume any new risk, and the insurers remained answerable.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jul-2000, Times 08-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Appeal fromK/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd’s Policy 25T 1054 and Others CA 31-Jul-2001
The owners of the ‘MERCANDIAN CONTINENT’ had obtained judgment in earlier High Court proceedings against a Trinidadian shipyard for damage caused by negligent repair work. Jurisdiction in the earlier proceedings had been founded on an agreed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Insurance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.82659

Versloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others: CA 16 Oct 2014

Judges:

Christopher Clarke, Vos LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1349, [2015] QB 608

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ComCVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others ComC 14-Jun-2013
The claimant shipowners suffered damage to their vessel and claimed under their policy with the defendants. The defendants argued that part of the evidence supporting the explanation of the claim was fabricated, thus excusing any payment.

Cited by:

At CAVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.537618

T M Noten BV v Harding: CA 1990

Bingham LJ wasasked as to what was meant by the proximate cause of an accident at sea, and said: ‘Unchallenged and unchallengeable authority shows that this is a question to be answered applying the common sense of a business or seafaring man.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, LawtonLJ

Citations:

[1990] Lloyd’s Rep 283

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromT M Noten BV v Hardin 1989
Industrial leather gloves were shipped from Calcutta to Rotterdam. On arrival the good were found to be wet, stained, mouldy and discoloured.
Held: The damage had been caused by moisture, which had been absorbed by the goods in the humid . .

Cited by:

CitedGlobal 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.

Insurance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.428478

Vyse v Wakefield: 1840

The declaration stated, that, by indenture, the defendant covenanted that he would, at any time or times thereafter, appear at an office or offices for the insurance of lives within London, or the bills of mortality, and answer such questions as might be asked respecting his age, and, in order to enable the plaintiff to ensure his life, and would riot afterward do or permit to be done any act whereby such insurance should be avoided or prejudiced. It then alleged, that the defendant, in part performance of his covenant, did, at the plaintiff’s request, appear at the office of the Rock Life Insurance Company, and did answer certain questions asked of him ; and that the plaintiff insured the defendant’s life with that Company, by a policy containing a proviso, that if the defendant went beyond the limits of Europe, the policy should be null and void : – Breach, that the defendant went beyond the limits of Europe, to wit, to the province of Canada, in North America :- Held, on special demurrer, that the declaration was bad, for not averririg that the defendant had notice that the policy was effective.
Lord Abinger CB said: ‘The rule to be collected from the cases seems to be this, that where a party stipulates to do a certain thing in a certain specific event which may become known to him, or with which he can make himself acquainted, he is not entitled to any notice, unless he stipulates for it; but when it is to do a thing which lies within the peculiar knowledge of the opposite party, this notice ought to be given.’

Judges:

Lord Abinger CB

Citations:

[1840] EngR 276, (1840) 6 M and W 442, (1840) 151 ER 485

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoVyse v Wakefield CExC 1840
A writ of error having been brought an the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in this case (6 M. and W 442), it now came on for argument. The Court, however, on reading the record, were unanimously of opinion, that an averment of notice to the . .

Cited by:

CitedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.309702

Vyse v Wakefield: CExC 1840

A writ of error having been brought an the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in this case (6 M. and W 442), it now came on for argument. The Court, however, on reading the record, were unanimously of opinion, that an averment of notice to the defendant that the policy had been affected was necessary to make the declaration good, arid that the judgment must he affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

Citations:

[1840] EngR 277, (1840) 7 M and W 126, (1840) 151 ER 706 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoVyse v Wakefield 1840
The declaration stated, that, by indenture, the defendant covenanted that he would, at any time or times thereafter, appear at an office or offices for the insurance of lives within London, or the bills of mortality, and answer such questions as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.309703

Johnson And Another v Chapman: 10 Jul 1865

Deck-cargo {timber) lawfully laden pursuant to charterparty, having broken adrift in consequence of stormy weather, and impending the navigation and endangering the safety of the vessel, was necessarily thrown overboard.
Held: that the shipper was entitled to claim general average in respect thereof, as against the ship-owner.

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

[1865] EngR 665, (1865) 19 CB NS 563, (1865) 141 ER 907

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.281577

Bensaude v Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd: HL 1897

Citations:

[1897] AC 609

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLimit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company CA 11-Apr-2005
There had been substantial oil leaks in Venezuela, which had been insured and then re-insured in London. Permission had been given to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction, but that permission had been set aside. The claimant now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.225891

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 faith in insurance contracts is a continuing one.
Willes J said: ‘A fire insurance, he said, is a contract of indemnity; that is, it is a contract to indemnify the assured against the consequences of a fire, provided it is not wilful. Of course, if the assured set fire to his house, he could not recover. That is clear. But it is not less clear that, even supposing it were not wilful, yet as it is a contract of indemnity only, that is, a contract to recoup the insured the value of the property destroyed by fire, if the claim is fraudulent, it is defeated altogether. That is, suppose the insured made a claim for twice the amount insured and lost, thus seeking to put the office off its guard, and in the result to recover more than he is entitled to, that would be a wilful fraud, and the consequence is that he could not recover anything. This is a defence quite different from that of wilful arson. It gives the go-bye to the origin of the fire, and it amounts to this – that the assured took advantage of the fire to make a fraudulent claim. The law upon such a case is in accordance with justice, and also with sound policy. The law is, that a person who had made such a fraudulent claim could not be permitted to recover at all. The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith on both sides, and it is most important that such good faith should be maintained. It is the common practice to insert in fire-policies conditions that they shall be void in the event of a fraudulent claim; and there was such a condition in the present case. Such a condition is only in accordance with legal principle and sound policy. It would be most dangerous to permit parties to practise such frauds, and then, notwithstanding their falsehood and fraud, to recover the real value of the goods consumed. And if there is wilful falsehood and fraud in the claim, the insured forfeits all claim whatever upon the policy.’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

[1865] EngR 66, (1865) 4 F and F 905, (1865) 176 ER 843

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGalloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
The claimant’s policy had been declared void ab initio by the court. On the application form he had falsely stated that he had no convictions, but had only shortly before been convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Part of the . .
CitedPorter 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insurance, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.214223

Lek v Mathews: 1927

Mr Lek was alleged to have dishonestly exaggerated a claim on the insurers of his stock. The policy required that if one part fell, all the claim fell: ‘As to the construction of the false claim clause, I think that it refers to anything falsely claimed, that is, anything not so unsubstantial as to make the maxim de minimis applicable, and is not limited to a claim which as to the whole is false. It means the claim as to particular subject-matters in respect of which a right to indemnity is asserted, not the mere amount of money claimed without regard to the particulars or the contents of the claim; and a claim is false not only if it is deliberately invented but also if it is made recklessly, not caring whether it is true or false but only seeking to succeed in the claim.’
In the Court of Appeal, Atkin LJ had held that even a knowing falsehood would not give rise to a forfeiture if Mr Lek genuinely believed that he was entitled to utter it. Commenting on this observation, Lord Sumner said that Lord Atkin must have had in mind ‘mis-statements on a purely collateral question’, adding that ‘even so I could not agree.’

Judges:

Viscount Sumner

Citations:

[1927] 29 Ll LR 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGalloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
The claimant’s policy had been declared void ab initio by the court. On the application form he had falsely stated that he had no convictions, but had only shortly before been convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Part of the . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.214224

Direct Line Insurance Plc v Khan and Another: CA 11 Oct 2001

If part of an insurance claim is shown to be fraudulent, the entire claim is avoided.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1794, [2002] LRIR 364, 2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 364

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDirect Line Insurance Plc v Khan and Another CA 4-Apr-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedAXA 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 . .
CitedAXA 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 . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.201387

Agapitos and Another v Agnew and others: ComC 24 Jul 2002

The common law principle governing fraudulent claims has a separate origin and existence to any principle that exists under or by analogy with s.17 of the Act.

Judges:

Moore-Bick J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1558 (Commercial), [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 54

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAXA 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 . .
At ComCAgapitos and Another v Agnew and others CA 6-Mar-2002
Insurers resisted a claim saying that fraudulent acts of the defendants to promote an otherwise valid claim, made the entire claim void. The insurance required certificates to be obtained before ‘hot’ works were undertaken as part of the ship’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.175503

Galloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Limited: CA 15 Oct 1997

The claimant’s policy had been declared void ab initio by the court. On the application form he had falsely stated that he had no convictions, but had only shortly before been convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Part of the claim had also been found to be dishonest, and had been convicted of an offence for that.
Held: That fraudulent part contaminated the whole claim. The contract of insurance being one of utmost good faith, the assured could not first make a fraudulent claim , then seek to leave that part and pursue the rest. He will forfeit all benefit under the policy whether there is a condition to that effect or not.’ The appeal failed.

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

[1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 209, [1997] EWCA Civ 2487, [1999] LRIR 209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBritton 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 . .
CitedOrakpo v Barclays Insurance Services and Another CA 1995
The insured sought to claim under his policy. The insurance company declined any payment, saying that part of the claim was fraudulent.
Hoffmann LJ said: ‘In my view, the claim also fails on the ground that it was substantially fraudulent. The . .
CitedLek v Mathews 1927
Mr Lek was alleged to have dishonestly exaggerated a claim on the insurers of his stock. The policy required that if one part fell, all the claim fell: ‘As to the construction of the false claim clause, I think that it refers to anything falsely . .

Cited by:

CitedAXA 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 . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.142885

Raffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others: CA 1 Mar 2001

An assigned marine insurance policy was subject to a claim. The issue was the ability of an assignee to claim as a claim in contract where the proper law was that under which the contract was made, or a claim of an intangible right to claim against insurers, a proprietary right resolved by the lex situs of the attached debt, namely France. A three stage process was identified, involving the characterisation of the issue in question, the selection of the rule of conflict of laws which lays down a connecting factor for that issue and the identification of the system of law which is tied by that connecting factor to that issue, the overall aim being to identify the most appropriate law to govern the particular issue. This process of characterisation ‘falls to be undertaken in a broad internationalist spirit in accordance with the principles of conflicts of laws of the forum, here England.’ This claim fitted more readily a contractual model.
Mance LJ spoke of the principles governing the identification of the appropriate law, saying: ‘The overall aim is to identify the most appropriate law to govern a particular issue. The classes or categories of issue which the law recognises [when characterising the relevant issue] are man-made, not natural. They have no inherent value, beyond their purpose in assisting to select the most appropriate law. A mechanistic application, without regard to the consequences, would conflict with the purpose for which they were conceived.’
. . And: ‘There is a rule of practice that the assignor should be joined, but that rule will not be insisted upon where there is no need, in particular if there is no risk of a separate claim by the assignor.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Mance LJ, Charles J

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 68, [2001] CLC 84, [2001] 3 All ER 257, [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 460, [2001] 1 LLR 597, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 961, [2001] 2 WLR 1344, [2001] 1 QB 825

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980) 12, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRaiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others QBD 21-Jun-2000
A marine insurance policy governed by English law but made with French insurers was assigned, but notice of the assignment was not made according to French law through a bailiff. Nevertheless recovery under the policy was ordered. Under the Rome . .
CitedMacmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) CA 2-Nov-1995
The question of ownership of a company is to be decided according to law of country where the company is incorporated. Conflict of laws rules are to be used to look to the issue in the case not the cause of action.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In any . .

Cited by:

CitedKnight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
CitedBuhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank . .
CitedIran v Berend QBD 1-Feb-2007
The Republic of Iran sought the return of a fragment of ancient Achaemenid relief in the possession of the defendant, saying that it was part of an ancient monument. The defendant said that she had bought it properly at an auction in Paris. The . .
CitedGorjat v Gorjat ChD 29-Jun-2010
The claimant, daughters of the deceased by his first marriage challenged a transfer of a significant sum by their father before his death, saying that he lacked mental capacity. . .
CitedCox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85641

Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Another: CA 23 Jan 1997

The results which would follow from a fraudulent insurance claim should not to be extended similarly to follow from culpable non-disclosure in the absence of fraud.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83378

Mann and Another v Lexington Insurance Co: CA 29 Nov 2000

Where damage was caused to stores in Indonesia by riots occurring on different days, these were, for the purposes of the insurance contract, separate occurrences, and a clause limiting the sum payable per occurrence was accordingly to be applied separately to each event. It was a question of fact in each case. There was a ‘retrocessionaire’ clause which provided for aggregation in specified circumstances, and this was not to be extended by implication generally.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83381

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 that for which a claim is made in the period of the insurance whenever the damage or its cause arose.

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC 1205 (Comm), [1999] 1Ll LR 6

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedQuinn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82449

Haydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another: PC 23 Jan 1997

(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the policy. The question was whether this was ‘one claim’ or a series of claims.
Held: The phrase referred to the claim as directed against the firm by the client who had lost out, and not to the several acts of appropriation by the clerk. ‘it is the underlying facts which are determinative, and . . the formulation of the claim by the third party cannot be decisive of an insurer’s liability, whether for the purpose of calculating the deductible, or for any other purpose. ‘
(Hong Kong)

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1997, [1997] UKPC 2, [1997] 1 WLR 198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedAustralia and New Zealand Bank Limited v Colonial and Eagle Wharves Limited 1960
A claim was made under an all risks insurance policy on goods taken out by a firm of wharfingers. There was an excess of andpound;100 each and every claim. During the currency of the policy the wharfingers misdelivered a total of 246 bales on 30 . .
CitedWest Wake Price and Co v Ching 1957
A clerk employed by a firm of accountants defrauded two of the firm’s clients of andpound;20,000 over a period of about three years.
Held: One can not ‘pay’ a cause of action.
Devlin J said: ‘I think that the primary meaning of the word . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81285

Group Josi Reinsurance Company Sa v Universal General Insurance Company: ECJ 9 Aug 2000

The Brussels Convention rules allowing jurisdiction apply whenever the proposed defendant is domiciled in a convention country. The plaintiff need not be. The special rules on jurisdiction which apply to insurance cases do not apply to reinsurance contracts.

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-2000, C-412/98, [2000] EUECJ C-412/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Cited by:

CitedOwusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc CA 19-Jun-2002
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81058

Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1995

Some agents had policies against which there were likely to be various calls, either because several claims were being pursued against the same agents by different Lloyd’s Names, or because the policies were group policies covering several agents against each of which claims were being pursued, by different Lloyd’s Names. The essential issue was whether each claim ascertained as against an agent exhausted the agent’s insurance cover pro tanto, or whether all claims falling individually within a policy’s scope ranked or could be treated as ranking pari passu against the policy in whatever order they were ascertained against the insured agent or agents.
Held: Lloyds claims are to have priority of payment according to time of orders. The statutory transfer under the Act occurred notwithstanding that the insured’s liability to the third party had not yet been extinguished. The statutory transfer to the third party of the insured’s right against his insurer takes place at the moment of his bankruptcy.
Phillips J said: ‘In a situation of solvency, the ranking of claims against the EandO underwriter depends upon the order in which the third party Names establish liability against the assured by judgment, arbitration award or settlement, thereby giving rise to a vested right on the part of the assured to indemnity in accordance with the terms of the cover. The same is true in a situation of insolvency. If the insolvency occurs after third party Names have established quantified liability, the right or rights to indemnity that were thereby established in the assured agent will be transferred to the Names upon the assured becoming formally insolvent. If quantified liability has not been established at the date of insolvency, a third party Name asserting a claim will have transferred under the Act merely an inchoate or contingent right. If before that Name establishes a quantified claim, other quantified claims are established which exhaust the cover, his contingent right will be rendered nugatory.’ Phillips J summarised the relationship between the insurers and the solicitors acting: ‘Where underwriters instruct a solicitor to conduct the defence, they thereby create the relationship of solicitor and client between the solicitor and the assured . . The normal consequence of this is that the assured becomes liable to pay the solicitor’s costs, even if the underwriters were also liable for those costs . . Those costs are properly deemed to be incurred by the assured, even if they are funded by underwriters. . .’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437

Cited by:

Appeal fromCox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others CA 16-May-1995
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s . .
CitedCentre Reinsurance International Co and Another v Curzon Insurance Ltd ChD 12-Feb-2004
It was a necessary part of the system of statutory transfers of insurance obligations under the Act, that the rights should be transferred before exhaustion of any policy excess, and notwithstanding the insolvency. The rights (inchoate at this . .
CitedFirst 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 . .
CitedLaw Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
CitedTeal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insolvency, Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79586

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Cresta Holidays Ltd and Others: ChD 5 Apr 2001

Travel operators sold insurance on behalf of insurance companies who paid on Insurance Premium Tax. The level of tax was raised, but the increase was later found to be unlawful state aid. The operators sought a refund of the tax overpaid from the Commissioners. Such a claim could be made only under one of two provisions. One related to claims before payment, and the second to restitution. Since the claimants had not themselves paid the tax, there was no restitution, and the claim failed.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 215

Links:

Bailii

Insurance, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79376

Churchill Insurance v Charlton: CA 2 Feb 2001

The victim of an unlawful act of a driver off-road sought damages from another driver and his insurers. The insurers refused to pay.
Held: There is a balance to be found between the statutory purpose of compulsory motor insurance and the principal that a man should not benefit from his own wrongful act. The victim stood in the shoes of the insured as against the insurance company. He therefore had no better claim than the insured, and was subject to the defences available to the insurer against the insured.
Laws LJ said: A useful starting-point, I think, is to have in mind two contrasting propositions, neither of which (taken in isolation) can sensibly be doubted, but which would appear at face value to be inconsistent with one another.
The first of these proposition consists in the general rule that an assured is not covered by an insurance contract in respect of loss caused by his own intentional act: see for example Beresford [1938] AC 586 per Lord Atkin . . Rix LJ has described this as ‘a basic rule of insurance law’ . . Lord Atkin stated that the proposition ‘is not the result of public policy, but of the correct construction of the contract’. But public policy would surely vouchsafe at least as much, at any rate in a case where the intentional act in question was also a crime.
The second proposition is derived from the following state of affairs. The user of a vehicle is required by statute (on pain of criminal penalties) to be insured in respect of any liability which he may incur by virtue of the death of or personal injury to any person (or damage to property) which is occasioned by the use of the vehicle on a road in Great Britain, and this includes the case where the injury is deliberately and criminally caused: Road Traffic Act 1988 ss. 143(1)(a), 145(3)(a), Hardy [1964] 2 QB 745, Gardner [1984] AC 548. This state of affairs entails the conclusion that there is a class of case in which a policy of motor insurance may as a matter of construction cover the assured against losses caused by his own intentional and criminal act (else the statute would be incapable of fulfilment in relation to a category of possible events which, upon high authority, was plainly intended to be covered). This conclusion constitutes the second proposition. On its face it is inconsistent with the first proposition or is an exception to it.
It will be obvious that there are two public policies involved here. The first is the broad principle of the common law that no man may rely on his own wrong to gain advantage or benefit against another. That is behind the first proposition. The second is the principle of statute, that innocent third parties should be protected so far as money can do it from the harm – sometimes fatal – that may be inflicted by careless, dangerous and criminal drivers on the public roads: a protection not sufficiently given by the private law of insurance. That is behind the second proposition. The tension between the two arising where the driver’s conduct is criminal is resolved by the rule (derived from Hardy v MIB, confirmed in Gardner’s case) that a policy whose words on their face cover liability for death, personal injury or damage to property occasioned by the use of a vehicle on a road is treated – so as to give effect to the second proposition – as still doing so even where the liability arises on the facts from the driver’s own criminal act; although in that case – so as to give effect to the first proposition – the insured driver himself cannot take advantage of the policy . .
In my judgment a policy, such as that in the present case, whose insuring clause contains the word ‘accident’, may readily fulfil the requirements of s.145(3)(a), even in relation to a set of facts where the insured’s liability arises from his own deliberate criminal act. I have no difficulty in accepting that ‘accident’ and its cognates may be applied so as to cover such a set of facts: depending on the context of the word’s use, they plainly can. Billingham [1979] 1 WLR 747 and Lees [1981] RTR 506, cited by my Lords, vouchsafe as much.
Moreover, if the court’s view of ‘accident’ is conditioned by the force of the first proposition, there at once arises the danger of an approach being taken to the material provisions of the 1988 Act which would undermine the purpose and utility of section 151. As Rix LJ says . . the first proposition – the basic rule – applies whether or not the word ‘accident’ appears in the policy. In theory one might, driven by the first proposition, arrive at a result such as would not allow any policy of motor insurance (whether or not containing the word ‘accident’) to cover the insured’s liability for damages caused by his own deliberate criminal act; but that would contradict entirely the second proposition. Once one recognises (a) that in the field of motor insurance the role of the first proposition is only to disable the insured from recovering for his own benefit in a case of deliberate criminal conduct, and (b) that the policy may nevertheless and at the same time be treated as one which for the purposes of sections 143 and 145 insures the driver against liability for death (etc) in just such a case (and that is the effect of Hardy . . and Gardner . .), it becomes apparent that the presence or absence in the insuring clause of ‘accident’ or its cognates is of little or no significance.’

Judges:

Laws, Kennedy, Rix LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 112, [2001] EWCA Civ 1230, [2002] QB 578, [2001] RTR 33, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 387, [2001] 3 WLR 1435, [2001] PIQR P23, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 769

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 151, Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .
CitedBristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another QBD 1-Jul-2011
The driver had crashed into the insured’s building causing substantial damage. The court was asked which of the driver’s and building’s insurers should bear the costs. The driver’s insurers said that he had acted deliberately and therefore they were . .
CitedMulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant, a private investigator had contracted with the News of the World owned by the defendant but since closed. He had committed criminal offences in providing information for the paper, had been convicted and had served his sentence. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78992

Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: HL 6 Feb 2001

The appellants sold a system protecting credit card holders against the consequences of loss or theft. They claimed that it was insurance and exempt from VAT. The commissioners said it was a service and vatable. The card provided a range of services for those who had lost a card, and laid off the costs against their own re-insurance. The European Court had defined insurance as the payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded. The commissioners held that two services were included, one of insurance, and one of the registration of an individual’s card and other details.
Held: The dominant purpose of the contract was for insurance. Others were ancillary or minor. (Slynn) ‘the court’s task is to have regard to the ‘essential features of the transaction’ to see whether it is ‘several distinct principal services’ or a single service and that what from an economic point of view is in reality a single service should not be ‘artificially split’. It seems that an overall view should be taken and over-zealous dissecting and analysis of particular clauses should be avoided.’ The court should asking itself ‘what is the essential feature of the scheme or its dominant purpose – perhaps why objectively people are likely to want to join it’.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Nolan Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] UKHL 4, [2001] 2 ALL ER 143, [2001] 2 WLR 329, [2002] 1 AC 202

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (OJ 1977 L145/1), Value Added Tax Act 1983 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Referred backCard Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 25-Feb-1999
A company procuring insurance purchases for credit card protection was as exempt from VAT as was the insurer. A provision which restricted the ability to claim such exemption to those registered as insurers under national was invalid under European . .

Cited by:

Referred backCard Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 25-Feb-1999
A company procuring insurance purchases for credit card protection was as exempt from VAT as was the insurer. A provision which restricted the ability to claim such exemption to those registered as insurers under national was invalid under European . .
CitedCollege of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 13-Nov-2003
The college appealed a finding that the supply of course manuals to its students was part of its exempt rather than zero-rated supply.
Held: ‘Once it is decided that there is a single supply from an economic view which should not be . .
CitedCollege of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 11-Aug-2004
When offering courses to distance learning students, the College offered materials for the courses. As part of the course this supply would be exempt, as books, the supply would be zero-rated, but the taxpayer would be able to reclaim its VAT . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Banking, Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78887

AXA Reinsurance (UK) Plc v Field: HL 12 Sep 1996

The terms originating ’cause’ and ‘event’ are to be differently construed, one means a continuing situation and the other refers to a discrete event.
Under the ‘LMX Spiral’ Lloyds’ syndicates wrote substantial excess of loss business.The cross insurances between themselves eventually exhausted the cover, leaving none. Many members sued their underwiters, and the question was how the losses should be aggregated, the policies referring to losses arising ‘out of one event’.
Held: An ‘originating event’ is a one off, event, and is neither a continuous event, nor the same as a ’cause’. The expressions were different. The word ‘originating’ had been chosen to widen up the meaning to look out for one underlying and unifying factor. The claims could be aggregated.

Judges:

Mustill L

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1026, [1996] 3 All ER 517, [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 233, [1996] 5 Re L R 184, [1996] CLC 1169, (1996) 146 NLJ 1093, Times 02-Jul-1996

Citing:

CitedCox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others CA 16-May-1995
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s . .
Reversed on appeal fromAXA Reinsurance UK Plc v Field CA 10-Oct-1995
Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract. . .

Cited by:

Reversed on appeal toAXA Reinsurance UK Plc v Field CA 10-Oct-1995
Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract. . .
CitedLloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had paid out many claims for mis-selling pensions. They sought to claim under their insurance. The claims met the requirements of the principle insurance, but the insurance companies sought to impose a limit by aggregation.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78033

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 – Workers’ compensation policy with indemnity extended to include employer’s common law liability – Motor vehicle third party policy covering employer’s liability to employee arising out of use of motor vehicle.
Kitto J said: ‘ ‘a principle applicable at law no less than in equity, is that persons who are under co-ordinate liabilities to make good one loss (eg sureties liable to make good a failure to pay the one debt) must share the burden pro rata’: the object being, as Hamilton J stated in American Surety Co of New York v Wrightson (1910) 103 LT 663: ‘to put people who have commonly guaranteed or commonly insured in the same position as if the principal creditor or the assured had pursued his remedies rateably among them instead of doing as he is entitled to do, exhausting them to suit himself against one or other of them.”

Judges:

Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Kitto, Menzies and Windeyer J.

Citations:

[1969] HCA 55, (1969) 121 CLR 342

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

CitedThe 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 . .
CitedZurich 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.

Commonwealth, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566217

AMP Workers Compensation v QBE: 19 Sep 2001

Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) FACTS
The appeal involved a question of double insurance. The employer held a compulsory third party policy with QBE Insurance Limited in respect of a motor vehicle and a current workers’ compensation policy with AMP Workers’ Compensation Services (NSW) Limited. An employee in the course of his employment was injured by another employee negligently driving in the course of his employment with the same employer.
The first employee commenced proceedings against the second employee but did not seek to join the employer although it would have been vicariously liable. Those proceedings were settled. QBE satisfied the judgment debt as the compulsory third party policy covered the employee as the driver of the vehicle. QBE then claimed contribution from AMP. AMP argued that there was no relevant double insurance because its workers’ compensation policy did not cover the negligent employee who was liable and entitled to indemnity from QBE, and the employer it did insure was never liable and never entitled to indemnity under either policy.
The dispute turned on the relevant date for the purposes of determining the question of double insurance. AMP contended that this had to be determined after the event when the claim for contribution was made. QBE contended that the question must be determined at the date of casualty. In the latter case there would clearly be double insurance in this case.
HELD (per Handley JA, Mason P and Beazley JA agreeing)
(i) The right of contribution only exists in respect of insurances which are contracts of indemnity, where two or more insurers are on risk in respect of the same loss or liability. The right arises when and because one of the insurers has paid more than his proper share of the common demand. Where one insurer has paid in full the indemnity is satisfied and the insured has no right of indemnity against any other insurer. The right of contribution therefore cannot depend on the continued existence of coordinate liabilities for the same demand because the very payment by one which calls the right into existence will have put an end to the liability of the other insurance.
(ii) The judgments in Albion Insurance Co Limited v Government Insurance Office (NSW) [1969] HCA 55; (1969) 121 CLR 342 require the question of double insurance to be determined at the time of the casualty. Although the present question did not arise in Albion Insurance, the focus in both judgments was on the contractual position at the time of the casualty when the loss in the one case, or the liability in the other, accrued.
(iii) There is no reason in precedent or principle why the right of contribution should be defeated by the existence of a second layer of choice available to another party. It should not rest with either of the persons who had available choices to exercise those choices in a way which would leave the ultimate burden on one of the insurers without any right of contribution from the other.
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.

Judges:

Mason P, Handley, Beazley JJA

Citations:

[2001] NSWCA 267, (2001) 53 NSWLR 35

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

CitedZurich 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.

Commonwealth, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566218

Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v GIO General Ltd: 10 Mar 2011

Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) INSURANCE – Double insurance principle – two different insureds entitled to indemnity from two different insurers with respect to separate liabilities for the same injury – contribution between insurers – extended contribution principle in AMP Workers Compensation Services (NSW) Ltd v QBE Insurance Ltd [2001] NSWCA 267; (2001) 53 NSWLR 35 – uncrystallised liability sufficient for purposes of double insurance – second insurer concurred in first insurer indemnifying its insured in the injury – proof of liability of second insurer’s insured – first insurer’s indemnity discharged that liability – second insurer required to share burden of indemnity – sufficient to declare entitlement to contribution

Judges:

Allsop P, Giles JA, Young JA

Citations:

[2011] NSWCA 47

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

CitedZurich 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.

Commonwealth, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566219

Kingscroft Insurance Company Limited, Walbrook Insurance Company Limited etc v The Nissan Fire and Marine Insurance Company Limited (No 2): 1999

An expert witness: ‘can, and indeed should inform the court of any aspects of the commercial background which have a bearing on the construction of the contract and explain their relevance’.

Citations:

[1999] Lloyds Insurance and Reinsurance Law Reports 603

Cited by:

CitedCrema v Cenkos Securities Plc CA 16-Dec-2010
C sought payment of broker fees after assisting in raising funds for a venture capital company. The parties disputed the terms as to when payment was to be made.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The evidence did not allow the inference of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.430073

Godin v The London Assurance Company: 1746

Insurance made by a factor, who has a lien on the goods of his principal, does not pass by a consignmerit of the goods insured to a third person, by the principal.

Citations:

[1746] EngR 202, (1746-1779) 1 Black W 104, (1746) 96 ER 58

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See AlsoGodin Et Al v London Assurance Company 9-Feb-1758
The defendant insurers contended that because there had been double insurance they ought only to have to pay half the loss, although neither insurer had as yet paid any sum. They appealed against an order that it pay the whole loss.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.380590

Knight v Cambridge: 1795

If the master of a sbip, intending to avoid the payment of port duties, attempt to run her out of port, and is stopped, and the ship thereby forfeited, this is barratry in the master, and renders the underwriter of the ship liable, within the terms of a policy insuring against the barratry of the master.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 2308, (1795) 8 Mod 229, (1795) 88 ER 165 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.354653

Godin Et Al v London Assurance Company: 9 Feb 1758

The defendant insurers contended that because there had been double insurance they ought only to have to pay half the loss, although neither insurer had as yet paid any sum. They appealed against an order that it pay the whole loss.
Held: The appeal failed. Lord Mansfield said: ‘Before the introduction of wagering policies, it was, upon principles of convenience, very wisely established, that a man should not recover more than he had lost. Insurance was considered as an indemnity only, in case of a loss: and therefore the satisfaction ought not to exceed the loss . . If the insured is to receive but one satisfaction, natural justice says that the several insurers shall all of them contribute pro rata, to satisfy that loss against which they have all insured . . Where a man makes a double insurance of the same thing, in such a manner that he can clearly recover, against several insurers in distinct policies, a double satisfaction, ‘the law certainly says that he ought not to recover doubly for the same loss, but be content with one single satisfaction for it’ . . And if the whole should be recovered from one, he ought to stand in the place of the insured, to receive contribution from the other, who was equally liable to pay the whole.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

[1758] EngR 138, (1758) 1 Burr 489, (1758) 97 ER 419

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoGodin v The London Assurance Company 1746
Insurance made by a factor, who has a lien on the goods of his principal, does not pass by a consignmerit of the goods insured to a third person, by the principal. . .

Cited by:

CitedZurich 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.

Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.342439

The Sea Insurance Company Of Scotland v Gavin, And Others: SCS 1829

Under a policy insuring a brigantine ” at and from L. to S., and thence to ‘Barcelona, and at and from thence and two other ports in Spain, to a ‘port in Great Britain : ‘–held, that Saloe, a place lying in a bay, having warehouses and a jetty, with a depth of water sufficient for feluccas, but not for large ships, and a good roadsted anchorage where ships lie and are loaded by means of small craft ; having also a custom-house and officers is a ”port’ within the meaning of the policy.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 244, (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 578, (1829) 5 ER 206

Links:

Commonlii

Scotland, Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.322112

Forsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General: HL 1925

Viscount Cave LC said that ‘by a contract of reinsurance the reinsuring party insures the original insuring party against the original loss.’

Judges:

Viscount Cave LC

Citations:

[1925] AC 639

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromForsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General CA 1924
. .

Cited by:

CitedAgnew (Suing On His Own Behalf and In a Representative Capacity on Behalf of all Members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 672, 79, 1023 and 590) and Others v Lansforsakringsbolagens A B HL 17-Feb-2000
An action relating to misrepresentation before a contract of re-insurance is, within the Lugano Convention, an action relating to a contract, rather than to insurance. Accordingly the appropriate forum for any litigation was the place where the . .
CitedLexington 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.280510

Charnock v Liverpool Corporation and Kirbys (Commercial) Ltd: CA 1968

When an insured Vehicle was sent for repairs with the assent of an insurer, there were two separate contracts which arose in respect of the repairs. The first contract was between the insurer and the repairer that the insurer would pay for the repairs. The second contract was between the insured and the repairer that the repairs would be carried out by the repairer with reasonable care and expedition. Where the contract does not specify the time within which works are to be completed a term will be implied which binds the contractor to complete within a reasonable time.
Harman LJ said: ‘the judge held that the repairers were liable because they had impliedly contracted with the plaintiff to do the work within a reasonable time and, not having done so, they were in breach of their contract in that respect.
The fact that the insurance company will indemnify the owner is well known in all insurance cases to both parties. The practice has grown up that the insurance company shall agree the sum for which they will stand surety and a contract is very often made by the repairer with the insurance company. Let it be so in this case. That does not in my view at all rule out the existence of a contract between the person who owns the car and the repairers. The owner takes the car in to the repairers and he asks them to repair it, at whatever cost the insurance company will be willing to go to, and everybody knows that the insurance company will within that limit pay. Whether there is any obligation on the owner himself to pay if the insurance company does not is another matter; but I cannot see why there is, as regards the owner, not a contract on which the repairers are liable first, if they do not do the work with reasonable skill and secondly, if they do notdo it within a reasonable time; and it is on that contract that the present case turns.
The court I think, was inclined to take the view that the judge, who held that there were two contracts, one between the insurers and the repairers and one between the plaintiff and the repairers, was clearly right.
It seems to me that it is quite reasonable to leave standing the view that there was a contract between the repairers and the insurance company and that the only person liable to pay on that
was the insurance company.’

Judges:

Salmon, Harmon LJJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1498, [1968] 3 All ER 473

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259332

West Wake Price and Co v Ching: 1957

A clerk employed by a firm of accountants defrauded two of the firm’s clients of andpound;20,000 over a period of about three years.
Held: One can not ‘pay’ a cause of action.
Devlin J said: ‘I think that the primary meaning of the word ‘claim’ – whether used in a popular sense or in a strict legal sense – is such as to attach it to the object that is claimed; and is not the same thing as the cause of action by which the claim may be supported or as the grounds on which it may be based.’
and ‘If you say of a claim against a defendant that it is for ,100, you have said all that is necessary to identify it as a claim; but if you say of it that it is for fraud or negligence, you have not distinguished it from a charge or allegation. In particular, if you identify a claim as something that has to be paid . . it must be something that is capable of separate payment: you cannot pay a cause of action. It follows, I think, that if there is only one object claimed by one person, then there is only one claim, however many may be the grounds or the causes of action which can be raised in support of it.’
and ‘The assured cannot recover anything under the main indemnity clause or make any claim against the underwriters until they have been found liable and so sustained a loss.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1957] 1 WLR 45

Cited by:

CitedHaydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another PC 23-Jan-1997
(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the . .
ApprovedPost Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd CA 1967
A contract of insurance provided an indemnity for ‘all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation in respect of loss of property’. The claim was by the Post Office against a contractor, Potters, for damaging one of . .
CitedLaw Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.242424

Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc and others v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (the “Padre Island”) (No 2): 1987

Judges:

Mr Justice Saville

Citations:

[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 529

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSocony Mobil Oil Co Inc v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (Padri Island) (No 2); Firma CF-Trade SA v Similar (Fanti) CA 30-Nov-1989
The court considered appeals from conflicting interpretations of the effect of s1(3) of the 1930 Act on pay to be paid clauses in the event of the insolvency of the insured.
Held: The condition did not purport to avoid the contract or to alter . .
CitedFreakley and Curzon Insurance Ltd v Centre Reinsurance International Company and Another; similar CA 11-Feb-2005
Claims were made for personal injury caused by asbestos. The re-insurers sought declaratory relief against the head insurers, and the administrators of the insolvent company. The administrators sought declarations in turn. Curzon insured the company . .
CitedErnest John Fifield and Another v W and R Jack Limited PC 29-Jun-2000
PC (New Zealand) The tenants sought an extension of time to take their rent review to arbitration. The Landlords appealed a grant of leave.
Held: The grant of leave was discretionary where the court found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223314

Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No 2): QBD 1995

Applying Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King, Colman J said: ‘Notwithstanding the commercial purpose of this transaction, the correct approach, as a matter of construction, is to conclude that in fact the effect of cl (a) is only to exclude the right to avoid for innocent material misrepresentation and innocent material non-disclosure and not for negligent misrepresentation or non-disclosure’.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedCanada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King PC 21-Jan-1952
A lease of a freight shed exonerated the lessor from ‘any claim . . for . . damage . . to . . Goods . . being . . in the said shed’ and requiring the lessee to indemnify the lessor ‘from and against all claims’. The negligent use of an oxy-acetylene . .

Cited by:

CitedHIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others v Chase Manhattan Bank and others HL 20-Feb-2003
The insurance company had paid claims on policies used to underwrite the production of TV films. The re-insurers resisted the claims against them by the insurers on the grounds of non-disclosure by the insured, or in the alternative damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219305

Harker v Caledonian Insurance Co: 1980

The monetary limit of the compulsory insurance was to be read into section 10, however ‘there are instances, of which costs and interest on the judgment are examples, where the insurer would be liable in the direct action for sums in excess of the permissible monetary limits upon the cover afforded by the policy.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 556

Statutes:

Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act 10

Cited by:

CitedPresidential Insurance Company v Molly Hosein Stafford PC 22-Mar-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Mrs Stafford obtained judgment against a driver insured by the appellant. He was unable to satisfy the claim and she sought recovery from the insurers. They claimed that their liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200465

London Assurance Company v SainsburyWood Immigration: 28 Jun 1783

An insurance office having paid the assured the amount of the loss sustained by him in consequence of a demolishing by rioters, sued the hundredors under the stat. I G. 1, at. 2, e. 5, s. 6, in their own names. HeId by Lord Mansfield and Butler, J. (Willes and Ashurst, J.J,, dissentient), that the office was not erititled to recover. The insurers could not sue the hundred in their own names and overturned the award of damages by a jury.

Judges:

Mansfield L, Butler, Willes, Ashurst, JJ

Citations:

(1783) 3 Dougl 246, [1783] EngR 109, (1783) 3 Doug 245, (1783) 99 ER 636

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimpson and Co v Thomson HL 1877
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . .
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
CitedThe 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.

Insurance, Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.191157

Anderson v Martin: 1907

Takings at sea had been covered and the subjects of marine insurance–ships and cargoes–are properly treated as objects of war to be taken in prize or by way of reprisal: this was the meaning of the word ‘capture’ in marine insurance policies.

Citations:

[1907] 2 KB 253

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation and Another v Kuwait Insurance Company SAK and others HL 11-Mar-1999
The airline’s airplanes were taken in the invasion of Kuwait. The company sought to claim on its insurance.
Held: This was a matter of construing the particular terms of the insurance contracts. As regards the claims under the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190117

Abrahams v Mediterranean Insurance and Reinsurance Co Ltd: 1991

Citations:

[1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 216

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187268

Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC v NRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd: ComC 1 Aug 1995

Exxon claim clean-up expenses in Texas. Plaintiffs settle on basis would be liable to Exxon in Texas. Excess of loss reinsurance. How should liability of plaintiffs be assessed? Relevance of liability in Texas. Liability of reinsurer. Reinsurer liable on basis of liability in Texas

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 80, [1997] CLC 1561

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reversed on appeal toSkandia International Corp and Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC v NRG Victory Reinsurance Limited CA 16-Mar-1998
A fully defended foreign judgment against an insurer was binding on the re-insurer, but insurer must show that the settlement was properly entered into.
cw Exxon claimed clean-up expenses in Texas. The . .

Cited by:

Reversed on Appeal fromSkandia International Corp and Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC v NRG Victory Reinsurance Limited CA 16-Mar-1998
A fully defended foreign judgment against an insurer was binding on the re-insurer, but insurer must show that the settlement was properly entered into.
cw Exxon claimed clean-up expenses in Texas. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182579

Verelst’s Administratrix v Motor Cross Union Insurance Company Limited: 1925

The insured was killed in a motor accident in India on 14 January 1923. Knowledge of her death reached her personal representative in England within a month, but the personal representative did not know of the existence of the insurance policy until January 1924. Notice was given to the insurance company as soon as possible thereafter. The insurance company repudiated liability on the ground that notice was not given ‘as soon as possible’ within the meaning of the condition.
Held: The insurer was liable. All existing circumstances must be taken into account, including the available means of knowledge of the insured’s personal representative of the existence of the policy and the identity of the insurance company and that the arbitrator was entitled to find that notice had been given ‘as soon as possible’. There was no finding that the administrator was in default in not having learned of the existence of the policy more speedily. In all the circumstances notice had been made ‘as soon as possible’ and the insurer was liable to pay up.

Judges:

Roche J

Citations:

[1925] 2 KB 137

Cited by:

CitedMacCaferri Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc ComC 19-Jun-2015
maccafferiCoC201506
The claimant manufacturer challenged a refusal of indemnity from his insurers, the defendants under its product liability policy. An end user consumer had been injured. The insurer said that the claimant had delayed on notifying the possible claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.549267

Reischer v Borwick: CA 1894

If there are two concurrent causes one falling within the policy, the other simply not covered by the terms of the policy, the insured may recover. For the purposes of a contract of insurance it is sufficient if an insured event is, in this sense, a co-operating cause of the loss. The proximate cause rule was based upon ‘the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract into which they have entered’, and is to be ‘applied with good sense so as to give effect to, and not to defeat, those intentions.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

[1894] 2 QB 548

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.462943

Mentz, Decker and Co v Maritime Insurance Co: 1910

Citations:

[1910] 1 KB 132

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.449874

Insurance Corporation of Channel Islands Limited and Another v Royal Hotel Limited and others (No 2): 1998

The court was asked whether insurers could avoid a policy by reason of the creation by one of the insured hotel’s directors of false invoices intended to create a more favourable picture of the hotel’s trading performance if it became desirable to show its accounts to its bankers. No actual use of the invoices had been made. The issue was whether the matters were nevertheless material to be known to a prudent insurer in the claimant’s position upon the renewal of insurance, the onus being on the insurer to establish this.
Mance J discussed what is embraced by ‘risk’ in the context of avoidance for material non-disclosure: ‘It is not simply the peril or possibility of loss of damage occurring within the scope of the policy. It embraces other matters which would, if known be likely to influence a prudent underwriter’s decision. It includes what is known as ‘moral hazard’ which may merely increase the likelihood of it being made to appear (falsely) that loss or damage has occurred falling within the scope of the policy . ..’

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

[1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 151

Citing:

See alsoInsurance Corporation of Channel Islands Limited and Another v Royal Hotel Limited and others CA 14-Feb-1997
A speedy trial had been agreed. One defendant was unable to put its solicitors in funds, and sought a release of the date to allow time to get funds together. . .
ExplainedPan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd CA 1993
Steyn LJ said that ‘avoidance for non-disclosure is the remedy provided by law because the risk presented is different from the true risk. But for the non-disclosure the prudent underwriter would have appreciated that it was a different . . risk’ . .
CitedPan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd HL 27-Jul-1994
The plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff.
Held: ‘material circumstance’ which . .

Cited by:

CitedSharon’s Bakery (Europe) Ltd v Axa Insurance UK Plc and Another ComC 9-Feb-2011
The insurers refused a claim for fire damage alleging that the insured had created a false invoice for use as evidence of title in a separate transaction when seeking finance. . .
CitedSharon’s Bakery (Europe) Ltd v Axa Insurance UK Plc and Another ComC 9-Feb-2011
The insurers refused a claim for fire damage alleging that the insured had created a false invoice for use as evidence of title in a separate transaction when seeking finance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.430087

Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd: HL 1918

The ship was insured against the perils of the sea by a policy containing a warranty against all consequences of hostilities. While voyaging to Le Havre, she was torpedoed by a German submarine 25 miles from port. She began to settle by the head, but helped by tugs got to Le Havre and was taken alongside a quay in the outer harbour. A gale caused her to bump against a quay and the harbour authorities, fearing that she would block the quay, ordered her to moor at a berth inside the outer breakwater. She was there for two days, taking the ground at each ebb tide, but floating with the flood. At last her bulkheads gave way and she sank, becoming a total loss. In an action brought by the shipowners on the policy claiming to recover as for loss by perils of the sea, the House of Lords held that the grounding of the vessel was not a novus casus interveniens and that the torpedoing was the proximate cause of the loss and that consequently the underwriters were protected by the warranty against all consequences of hostilities. The ‘proximate cause’ under the 1906 Act need not always be the event closest in time to the incident. The proximate cause is that which is proximate in efficiency.

Citations:

[1918] AC 350

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 55(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGlobal 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: . .
CitedPetroleo 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.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.428477

Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Hamilton, Fraser and Co: 1887

Lord MacNaghten noted that: ‘In marine insurance it is above all things necessary to abide by settled rules and to avoid anything like novel refinements or a new departure’.

Judges:

Lord Macnaghten

Citations:

(1887) 12 AC 484

Cited by:

CitedGlobal 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.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.428511

Mountain v Whittle: HL 1921

The insured vessel, a houseboat, was towed alongside a tug some seven and half miles to Northam. Her topside seams were leaky and defective. The breast wave thrown up by the two vessels caused water to mount up against the seams and enter and sink the houseboat. Some four feet of water entered in 100 minutes towing at a moderate speed.
Held: It was no necessary answer to a claim for loss by perils of the sea that the loss only occurred because the vessel was unseaworthy. After negativing the existence of any warranty or defence under section 39(5) of the 1906 Act, Lord Birkenhead LC turned without further consideration of unseaworthiness to the question whether the vessel had met with any peril of the sea. The fact that ‘loss caused by the entrance of sea water is not necessarily a loss by perils of the seas’. In the event, the House upheld concurrent decisions of the courts below that the breast wave ‘amounted to a peril of the seas just as must as if it had been occasioned by a high wind’, and that sinking by such a wave was ‘a fortuitous casualty; whether formed by passing steamers or between tug and tow, it was beyond the ordinary action of wind and wave, or the ordinary incidents of such towage’. The breast wave was said to be a ‘wash of an extraordinary character’ Viscount Finlay said that ‘There must be some special circumstance such as heavy waves causing the entrance of the sea water to make it a peril of the seas.’

Judges:

Lord Birkenhead LC, Viscount Haldane and Viscount Cave, Viscount Finlay, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1921] AC 615

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 39(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGlobal 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.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.428512

Commercial Union Assurance v Lister: CA 1874

The insured had taken out insurance with the plaintiff, but had undervalued it. It burned down due to the negligence of a third party.
Held: The insured was entitled to sue for the entire sum in his own name and as he thought fit, but would remain subject to liability to his insurers for any breach of an equitable duty to them. James LJ referred to the insured having an equitable duty or obligation but did not further define it.

Judges:

James LJ

Citations:

(1874) LR9 Ch App 483, 43 LJ Ch 601 LJJ

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHorwood and Others v Land of Leather Ltd and Others ComC 18-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to claim for personal injuries against the defendant company, now in administration, and their insurers using the 1930 Act. The insurers said they were not liable to indemnify the company. The parties disputed the standing of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.403373

Balfour v Beaumont: 1984

Citations:

[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBalfour v Beaumont 1982
. .

Cited by:

CitedLexington 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372860

British Dominions General Insurance Co Ltd v Duder: KBD 1915

The court was asked whether the insurers, having settled the owners’ claim for a constructive total loss at 66 per cent. of the sum insured could recover 100 per cent. from their re-insurers. Bailhache J. held that they could, with the result that the insurers would have made a profit out of the re-insurance.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The contract of re-insurance is a contract of indemnity. Accordingly the insurers could not recover more than they had lost. In English law a contract of reinsurance in relation to property is a contract under which the reinsurers insure the property that is the subject of the primary insurance; it is not simply a contract under which the reinsurers agree to indemnify the insurers in relation to any liability that they may incur under the primary insurance.
Buckley L.J said: ‘A contract of insurance and a contract of reinsurance, are independent of each other. But a contract of reinsurance is a contract which insures the thing originally insured, namely, the ship. The reinsurer has an insurable interest in the ship by virtue of his original contract of insurance. The thing insured, however, is the ship, and not the interest of the reinsurer in the ship by reason of his contract of insurance upon the ship.’ and ‘The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to indemnity, and this is not necessarily confined to the 66 per cent. They are entitled to such further sum, if any, as is required to give them an indemnity. The costs, for instance, of obtaining the compromise at 66 per cent. should be added to the 66 per cent.’

Judges:

Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1915] 2 KB 394

Cited by:

CitedLexington 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372597

Forsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General: CA 1924

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

(1924) 19 Ll LR 32

Cited by:

Appeal fromForsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General HL 1925
Viscount Cave LC said that ‘by a contract of reinsurance the reinsuring party insures the original insuring party against the original loss.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372846

La Compania Martiartu v Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation: CA 1923

The court found, on limited evidence, that the ship in respect of which her owners had claimed for a total loss of perils by sea, had in fact been scuttled with the connivance of those owners.
Scrutton LJ said: ‘This view renders it unnecessary finally to discuss the burden of proof, but in my present view, if there are circumstances suggesting that another cause than a peril insured against was the dominant or effective cause of the entry of seawater into the ship . . and an examination of all the evidence and probabilities leaves the court doubtful what is the real cause of the loss, the assured has failed to prove his case.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1923] 1 KB 650

Cited by:

ApprovedRhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
CitedFosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272861

Society of Lloyds v Clementson, Same v Mason: ComC 11 Jan 1994

An undertaking given on joining Lloyds is a sufficiently binding contract.

Citations:

Times 11-Jan-1994, [1995] CLC 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another CA 11-Nov-1994
It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty. . .

Cited by:

AppliedEurophone International Ltd v Frontel Communications Ltd ChD 25-Jul-2001
Although the VAT regime required all commercial enterprises to issue VAT invoices in a timely way, that is not sufficient, of itself, to create an implied term into contracts between businesses, that invoices should be issued in a way which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89375

Society of Lloyd’s v Clementson: ECJ 29 Nov 1995

Lloyds Name is a separate undertaking and Lloyds’ is an association of undertakings.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-1995

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 85

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Reference fromSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another CA 11-Nov-1994
It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty. . .

Cited by:

Referred toSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another CA 11-Nov-1994
It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89370

Society of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another: CA 11 Nov 1994

It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1994, Independent 11-Nov-1994

Statutes:

EC Treaty Article 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another CA 11-Nov-1994
It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty. . .
Referred toSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson ECJ 29-Nov-1995
Lloyds Name is a separate undertaking and Lloyds’ is an association of undertakings. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toSociety of Lloyds v Clementson, Same v Mason ComC 11-Jan-1994
An undertaking given on joining Lloyds is a sufficiently binding contract. . .
Appeal fromSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson and Another CA 11-Nov-1994
It was arguable that a central insolvency fund created to manage the Lloyd’s liabilities distorted competition, and was therefore unenforceable. The court refused to make a preliminary ruling on the applicability of article 85 of the EC Treaty. . .
Reference fromSociety of Lloyd’s v Clementson ECJ 29-Nov-1995
Lloyds Name is a separate undertaking and Lloyds’ is an association of undertakings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89374

Smit Tak Offshore Services and Others v Youell and Others: CA 15 Jan 1992

A marine insurance policy did not cover the cost of compliance with an unlawful threat from the state of Dubai to revoke a licence if a wreck was not removed. The threat did not create a legal responsibility covered by the insurance. An umbrella policy designed to cover risks not otherwise insured against, could not thereby be expected to cover all other risks.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89310

Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Others: QBD 5 Oct 1994

Names at Lloyds could reasonably expect due skill and care to be exercised in the choice of risks accepted on their behalf by underwriters. Incompetence in the writing of ‘excess of loss’ business gave rise to claim for negligence.

Citations:

Times 07-Oct-1994, Independent 05-Oct-1994

Professional Negligence, Insurance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79875

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 owner of the car as only liable in respect of the excess and other charges referable to him as opposed to the main cost of repairs which was payable by insurers. Sachs LJ said: ‘I only pause to add that there was no suggestion at the time or later that for any reason the insurers might repudiate liability to the insured, in which case a quite different position would result.’

Judges:

Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 Lloyds Reports 1, [1972] 3 All ER 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBee 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259335

British and Foreign Insurance Co Ltd v Wilson Shipping Co Ltd: HL 1921

The vessel was insured against perils of the sea and suffered damage by a risk covered by the policy. Before the damage was repaired she was lost, still during the currency of the policy, but by a risk which is not covered by the policy.
Held: The insurer was not liable for the unrepaired damage.

Citations:

[1921] 1 AC 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251758

London Guarantie Company v Fearnley: HL 1880

Lord Blackburn said: ‘My Lords, it has long been the practice of companies insuring against fire, for the purpose of their own security, to incorporate in their policies, by reference to their proposals, various stipulations for matters to be done by the assured making a claim before the company is to pay them, and (as the remedy by action for not complying with these stipulations would not afford them any protection) to make the fulfillment of those conditions a condition precedent to their obligation to pay. There was much controversy on the subject about a century ago; but since the case of Worsley v Wood (1) it has been settled law that this mode of protecting themselves is effectual.’ and ‘It seems to me, therefore, that the whole question is reduced to that of the construction of an ill-penned instrument: a matter on which opinions always may differ, and in this case have differed. I do not think that the rules which are laid down as to the construction of agreements in which there are cross contracts, in order to see whether those cross contracts are dependent or independent, are of much assistance, where, as here, the question is, whether a matter is expressly made a condition precedent, nor that much good can be done by arguing on the words used, or citing cases: it would be merely repeating what has been said below. All agree that the question is, what is the intention to be collected from the words. I agree that the intention is obscurely expressed; and that the obscurity is the fault of the language used by the company, which can be amended in future by so framing the policy as to leave no doubt as to its meaning; and this is, I think, the strongest argument against putting on the instrument the construction which I do. But, after making all due allowance for this, I am obliged to come to the conclusion that the intention must have been what I have last stated, and that it is sufficiently expressed to have the effect of making this a condition precedent.’

Judges:

Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1880) 5 App Cas 911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedF L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251067

Dawsons Ltd v Bonnin: HL 1922

The House considered whether a provision was a warranty rather than a representation, allowing the contract to be avoided for its breach. It was an inadvertently inaccurate statement by the insured in the proposal form which was expressly incorporated in the policy, as was a clause which expressly rendered the policy void for material misstatement.
Held: The inaccuracy was found to be immaterial but a majority of the House decided that there could be no claim under the insurance.
Lord Haldane said: ‘It is clear that the answer was textually inaccurate. I think that the words employed in the body of the policy can only be properly construed as having made its accuracy a condition. The result may be technical and harsh, but if the parties have so stipulated, we have no alternative, sitting as a Court of justice, but to give effect to the words agreed on. Hard cases must not be allowed to make bad law . . It was a specific insurance, based on a statement which is made of foundational if the parties have chosen, however carelessly, to stipulate that it should be so. Both on principle and in the light of authorities such as those I have already cited, it appears to me that when the answers, including that in question, are declared to be the basis of the contract this can only mean that their truth is made a condition exact fulfilment of which is rendered by stipulation foundational to its enforceability.’
Lord Cave said: ‘But it is contended . . that the ‘basis’ clause is limited or qualified by the fourth condition on the back of the policy [relating to material misstatement’].
And it is argued that, having regard to this condition, a misstatement in the proposal does not avoid the policy unless it is a material misstatement. I do not take that view. The ‘basis’ clause and the fourth condition do not cover the same ground. The former includes promissory statements which are apparently not within the condition; and the condition covers misstatements and concealments outside the proposal with which the ‘basis’ clause is not concerned. I think the two clauses are independent and cumulative provisions, each of which must take effect’
Lord Dunedin said: ‘I think that ‘basis’ cannot be taken as merely pleonastic and exegitical of the following words, ‘and incorporated therewith’. It must mean that the parties held that these statements are fundamental – ie go to the root of the contract – and that consequently if the statements are untrue the contract is not binding’

Judges:

Lord Haldane, Lord Cave, Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1922] SC (HL) 156, [1922] 2 AC 413

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedF L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
CitedGenesis 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 . .
CitedGenesis 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.

Contract, Insurance, Scotland

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251141

Crows Transport Ltd v Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd: 1965

The insured goods were stolen from temporary storage whilst awaiting being loading.
Held: They were ‘in transit’ under the insurance policy, everything done thereafter was incidental to and part of that transit.

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 383, [1965] 1 All ER 596

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedEurodale Manufacturing Ltd v Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Plc CA 10-Feb-2003
Goods were insured whilst in transit. They were stored in a secure warehouse over a weekend pending delivery but were stolen. The insurance covered them ‘during the ordinary course of transit’.
Held: The goods were covered. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.181632

Re Prudential Assurance Company Ltd and Rothesay Life Plc: CA 2 Dec 2020

‘This case raises for the first time before the Court of Appeal the approach that the court should adopt in dealing with applications to sanction transfers of insurance business under Part VII (‘Part VII’) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000′

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Financial Services

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656656

Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil: 1977

(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J said: ‘On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to the construction as a whole. Should this possibility become reality, the question of negligence in the absence of complete property coverage would have to be debated in Court. By recognising in all tradesmen an insurable interest based on that very real possibility, which itself has its source in the contractual arrangements opening the doors of the job site to the tradesmen, the Courts would apply to the construction field the principle expressed so long ago in the area of bailment. Thus all the parties whose joint efforts have one common goal, eg the completion of the construction, would be spared the necessity of fighting between themselves should an accident occur involving the possible responsibility of one of them.’

Judges:

de Grandpre J

Citations:

(1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558

Cited by:

CitedMark 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.

Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236418