The claimant had been insured under a business interruption insurance policy issued by the respondent defendaants. A claim had arisen, and had been settled, but the caimant said that the parties had mistaken the basis of the policy and had settled it on the basis that it was on a ‘gross profits basis’ which was subjet to averaging. In fact it was a ‘declaration-linked’ policy not subject to averaging. The mistake was, the claimants said, the result of a misrepresentation by the underwriters, or at least as a common mistake. The claim had been refused by the judge. The claimants now appealed.
Held: The appeal failed.
Judges:
Ward, Neuberger, Wilson LJJ
Citations:
[2007] 1 CLC 164, [2007] EWCA Civ 57, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 460
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Kyle Bay Ltd (T/A Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters Subscribing Under Policy No. 019057/08/01 ComC 29-Mar-2006
The court was asked whether the Claimants were entitled on the grounds of mistake and misrepresentation to re-open an insurance claim which they compromised with the Defendant underwriters. The claimant said that the it had taken out with the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc CA 31-Mar-2015
The claimant sought damages alleging his back had been injured at work. The insurers accepted liability but said that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of his injury. The claim was settled, but later a neighbour of the claimants said that the . .
Cited – Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Litigation Practice
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248384