Three parties were named as the insured under a fire policy, a company occupying the insured premises, the freeholders of the premises and the bank who had a floating charge over the property of the occupiers. A question arose as to the nature of their respective interests.
Held: Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘That there can be a joint insurance by persons having a joint interest is, of course, manifest. If A and B are joint owners of property – and I use that phrase in the strict sense – an undertaking to indemnify them jointly is a true contract of indemnity in respect of a joint loss which they have jointly suffered. Again, there can be no objection to combining in one insurance a number of persons having different interests in the subject-matter of the insurance, but I find myself unable to see how an insurance of that character can be called a joint insurance. In such a case the interest of each of the insured is different. The amount of his loss, if the subject-matter of the insurance is destroyed or damaged, depends on the nature of his interest, and the covenant of indemnity which the policy gives must, in such a case, necessarily operate as a covenant to indemnify in respect of each individual different loss which the various persons named may suffer. In such a case there is no joint element at all. There is no joint risk; there is no joint interest; the measure of loss suffered by those two parties will be different, calling for a different measure of indemnity, and, accordingly, it seems to me that there is no joint element about the thing at all. Such a policy, in my judgment, may be more accurately described as a composite policy, because it comprises, for reasons of obvious convenience, in one piece of paper the interests of a number of persons whose connection with the subject-matter of the insurance makes it natural and reasonable that the whole matter should be dealt with in one policy.
Judges:
Sir Wilfred Greene MR
Citations:
[1940] 2 KB 388
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland CA 19-Dec-2003
A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.195610