Godin Et Al v London Assurance Company; 9 Feb 1758

References: [1758] EngR 138, (1758) 1 Burr 489, (1758) 97 ER 419
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Mansfield
Ratio: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.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Godin -v- The London Assurance Company (Commonlii, [1746] EngR 202, (1746-1779) 1 Black W 104, (1746) 96 ER 58)
    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. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 30-Jun-16
Ref: 342439