The insurance policy excluded claims for ‘damage caused by or consisting of or consequential losses arising directly from theft or attempted theft no involving breaking into or out of the buildings of the premises by forcible and violent means’. The thief did not use violence to enter the premises but did break down an internal door.
Held: The insurance company could not rely upon the exclusion clause. The clause made no direct reference to external limits, and the context did not suggest that the insurance company’s interpretation was commercially intended. It was intended to avoid liability for thefts by those with a right to enter the building.
Judges:
Lord Drummond Young
Citations:
Times 06-Oct-2003
Insurance, Contract
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186975