A series of 32 asbestosis reinsurance contracts had been underwritten by Mr Outhwaite him without doing any proper assessment of the risk. The insurance had the wording: ‘each and every loss and/or occurrence . . and/or series of losses and/or occurrences . . arising out of one event’.
Held: The court did not in the context of that policy consider that the ‘one event’ need be an insured peril but did reject the idea that anything that happened could properly be described as ‘an event’. It distinguished between a historical event such as the hundred years war and a single event such as a particular hurricane. Mr Outhwaite’s repeated negligence, his sustained state of ignorance of the truth, could not be described as a single event.
Judges:
Evans LJ
Citations:
[1995] LRLR 433
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Caudle and Others v Sharp; Grove v Sharp QBD 8-Mar-1994
A continuing failure to investigate the risks of re-insurance was properly to be consideerd one event. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Caudle and Others v Sharp; Grove v Sharp QBD 8-Mar-1994
A continuing failure to investigate the risks of re-insurance was properly to be consideerd one event. . .
Cited – Lloyds 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
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.185433