Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Insurance - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Societe Anonyme d'Intermediaries Luxembourgeois -v- Farex Gie [1995] LRLR 116
1995
CA
Saville LJ
Insurance
The court considered the duty of disclosure impsed upon an insured: "Why should it be a breach of good faith sufficient to deprive the assured of his contract if the agent fails to disclose something which, had the assured known of it, would not have had to have been disclosed by the latter?"
1 Citers



 
 Orakpo -v- Barclays Insurance Services and Another; CA 1995 - [1995] Ll RLR 443
 
St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd -v- McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 116
1995

Evans LJ
Contract, Insurance
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of 'inducement' in the context of insurance contract. Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance at the same premium on terms which included subsidence risk. The court also considered the role played by presumption that if the recipient had known the truth, he would still have been willing to make the contract, but only on different terms, notably, but not only as to premium. "The existence of such a presumption is recognised in the authorities (Halsbury’s Laws vol 31 par 1067) 'Inducement cannot be inferred in law from proved materiality, although there may be cases where the materiality is so obvious as to justify an inference of fact that the representee was actually induced, but, even in such exceptional cases, the inference is only a prima facie one and may be rebutted by counter evidence.' " and there is "the need to distinguish "materiality" from "inducement", although inevitably the two overlap. Here, the evidence of the three underwriters who did give evidence and of the expert witnesses was clear. If the underwriters had been told the true state of the ground conditions, as revealed by the 1982 report, and of the conflicting views expressed by the authors of that report and by Worleys, then they would have called for further information and in all probability either refused the risk or accepted it on different terms. In fact, all four underwriters including Mr Earnshaw accepted it without any relevant enquiries. There is no evidence to displace a presumption that Mr Earnshaw like the other three was induced by the non-disclosure or misrepresentation to give cover on the terms on which he did. In my judgment, these insurers also have discharged their burden of proof."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Caudle and Others -v- Sharp; Grove -v- Sharp [1995] LRLR 433
1995
CA
Evans LJ
Insurance
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Toomey -v- Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 88
1995
QBD
Colman J
Insurance, Contract
Applying Canada Steamship Lines Ltd -v- The King, Colman J said: "Notwithstanding the commercial purpose of this transaction, the correct approach, as a matter of construction, is to conclude that in fact the effect of cl (a) is only to exclude the right to avoid for innocent material misrepresentation and innocent material non-disclosure and not for negligent misrepresentation or non-disclosure".
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Cox -v- Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others; QBD 27-Jan-1995 - Times, 27 January 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437
 
Bates and Others -v- Robert Barrow Ltd and Others; Ansell et -v- Same Times, 09 February 1995
9 Feb 1995
QBD

Insurance
Insurance contracts validity was re-instated by retrospective nature of Act.
Financial Services Act 1986 132


 
 Cox -v- Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others; CA 16-May-1995 - Independent, 09 June 1995; Times, 16 May 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437
 
Grace -v- Leslie & Godwin Financial Services Ltd Ind Summary, 12 June 1995; Times, 16 May 1995; [1995] LRLR 472
16 May 1995
ComC
Clarke J
Insurance, Negligence, Contract
Lloyds' brokers are to keep contract slips as evidence of the policy whilst ever a possibility of a claim exists. A failure to do so can hamper the conduct of the litigation to the detriment of syndicate members, and the broker can be liable to them in contract and in negligence.
1 Citers


 
Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co Ltd -v- Anz Banking Corporation (NZ) Ltd Gazette, 19 July 1995
19 Jul 1995
PC

Insurance, Commonwealth
Notice of mortgagees interest in fire policy sufficient equitable assignment.

 
Brown -v- KMR Services Ltd Times, 26 July 1995; Gazette, 15 September 1995; Independent, 13 September 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 513
26 Jul 1995
CA

Insurance, Damages
The scale of losses alone do not make damages claim too remote if it was nevertheless foreseeable. Liability for damages for negligent advice depends upon type not scale of loss. Claims against underwriters are separate for each year, set-off not allowed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Axa Reinsurance Plc -v- Roger Field Unreported, 27 July 1995
27 Jul 1995
ComC
Phillips J
Insurance
cw Insurance - agreement to limit liability - claims arising from one cause - personal indemnity insurance
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC -v- NRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 80; [1997] CLC 1561
1 Aug 1995
ComC
Clarke J
Insurance
cw Exxon claim clean-up expenses in Texas. Plaintiffs settle on basis would be liable to Exxon in Texas. Excess of loss reinsurance. How should liability of plaintiffs be assessed? Relevance of liability in Texas. Liability of reinsurer. Reinsurer liable on basis of liability in Texas
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Middleton -v- Wiggins and Others Independent, 31 August 1995
31 Aug 1995
CA

Insurance
A landfill gas escape and explosion was not an 'accident in method of disposal'.

 
PCW Syndicate -v- PCW Reinsurers Independent, 08 September 1995; Times, 10 October 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 1136
8 Sep 1995
CA

Insurance
A policy was not avoided by the agent's failure to disclose his own dishonesty with the principal. In this area there was no difference between the law of Marine Insurance and other insurances.
1 Citers


 
Mcblain -v- Dolan Times, 28 September 1995
28 Sep 1995
OHCS

Insurance
An insurer's failure to obtain a release certificate left him liable for damages
Road Traffic Act 1988 151

 
Axa Reinsurance UK Plc -v- Field Times, 10 October 1995; [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 26
10 Oct 1995
CA

Insurance
Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re A Company No 007816 of 1994, Same Re 007818, 007819, 007820, etc Times, 13 October 1995; [1997] 2 BCLC 685
13 Oct 1995
ChD

Company, Insurance
The company was said to have acted in breach of section 2(1) of the1982 Act. Held: A Minister's application to wind up companies in the public interest must be cogently argued. Insurance authorisation depends on where the effecting and carrying out of contracts of insurance occurs. The purpose of the addition of the words "as principal", which had not appeared in earlier equivalent legislation, was to confirm that it did not extend to agents duly authorised by insurers.
That an insurance contract is made outside the UK does not mean that there cannot be the carrying on of an insurance business within the UK. Some activities conducted by brokers in the UK on behalf of offshore companies (other than the mere acceptance of risk) can amount to evidence that the offshore companies were carrying on business in the UK.
Companies Act 1986 124A - Insurance Companies Act 1982 2(1)

 
Promet Engineering Pte Ltd -v- Sturge and Others; The Nukila Ind Summary, 04 December 1995; [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 85; [1996] CLC 294; Lloyd's List 15 November 1995 (I D )
24 Oct 1995
ComC

Insurance
An Inchmaree clause didn't apply if a welding break caused no damage to the other vessel.
cw Insurance - Inchmaree clause - scope - latent defects - patent defects - separate parts of insured property.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd -v- Fagan and Others; CA 6-Nov-1995 - Times, 06 November 1995; [1996] 2 WLR 726
 
Society of Lloyd's -v- Clementson Gazette, 29 November 1995
29 Nov 1995
ECJ

Insurance, European
Lloyds Name is a separate undertaking and Lloyds' is an association of undertakings.
EC Treaty Art 85
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank -v- Burnhope and Others Times, 05 December 1995; Times, 20 November 1995
5 Dec 1995
HL

Insurance
An insurance policy which provide cover against theft which was 'committed by persons present' required the physical presence of the thief.


 
 Hussain -v- Brown; CA 15-Dec-1995 - Times, 15 December 1995
 
Amey Properties Ltd -v- Cornhill Insurance Plc Ind Summary, 18 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
QBD

Insurance
The onus was on an insurance company to prove the want of repair if they wished to avoid liability- standard.

 
Royal Boskalis Westminster NV & Ors -v- Trevor Rex Mountain & Others Unreported, 18 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
ComC
Rix J
Insurance
Marine insurance - assured - revocation of notice abandonment - before or after commencement of action - effect : Marine insurance - assured - declaration of intention not to make claim for total loss - recovery of property - effect : Marine insurance - 'waived claim' - recovery in sue and labour - English law - claim - valid and lawful contract - unenforceable - tainted by collateral contract or conduct - connection - Beresford and Bowmakers principles : illegality defence - relevance of foreign law - doctrine of Foster v Driscoll, Regazzoni v Sethia : Marine insurance - valid English agreement - reliance on collateral foreign agreement - infringement of public policy - Lemenda Trading principle - extension : Marine insurance Act 1906 - defences - section 41 - lawfulness of adventure : Marine Insurance Act 1906 - defences - section 55 - wilful misconduct : defence - section 78(1) - expenses properly incurred : Marine Insurance Act 1906 - duty of good faith - avoidance - section 17 - claims - scope - fraudulent claims : Marine insurance - doctrine of materiality - fraudulent claim - no additional test for materiality - implied term of forfeiture : Marine insurance - post-contractual duty of good faith - remedies.
Rix J said that abandonment of a ship is: "A cession or transfer of the ship to the underwriter, and of all his property and interest in it with all the claims that may arise from its ownership, and all the profits that may arise from it, including the freight then being earned. Its operation is as effectually to transfer the property of the ship to the underwriter as a sale for valuable consideration, so that of necessity it vests in the underwriter a chattel of more or less value, as the case may be." and
"Normally, the assured must indicate his election to abandon by giving a notice of abandonment, which thus becomes a condition precedent to the right to claim a CTL (Section 62(1)), but exceptionally a notice of abandonment may be dispensed with (Section 62(7), (8), (9)). The underwriter is not obliged to accept the notice, and thus the abandonment, but if he does the abandonment is irrevocable (Section 62(6)). It seems to follow, as Atkinson J. held, [in PYSBE v. Beer] that an unaccepted notice of abandonment is revocable. An underwriter may pay the claim without accepting the abandonment: he is not obliged to take over a wreck, which may be a damnosa hereditas – see Allgemeine Versicherungs-Gesellschaft Helvetia v. Administrator of German Property [1931] 1 KB 672 at 687/88 per Scrutton L.J. If, however, he wishes, he is "entitled" to take over the assured's interest in the property (Section 63(1)). That is in any event the right of any underwriter who pays for a total loss, whether or not there is abandonment (Section 79, which repeats the language found in Section 63(1) to the effect that the insurer is entitled "to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject matter")."
Marine Insurance Act 1906 64(2) 41 55 78(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kuwait Airways Corporation & Anor -v- Kuwait Insurance Company S A K & Ors (No 1) [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 664
21 Dec 1995
ComC
Rix J
Insurance
ComC Construction of Insurance policies. Whether the Claimant could recover from their insurers for 15 aircraft taken by Iraqi forces in the invasion of Kuwait. Claim was made in respect of spare aircraft parts and for sue and labour expenses. Held that the ground limit did apply to spares, the ground limit was qualified by the words "any one occurrence, any one location" but that stores being looted were not events occurring in war and therefore the claim failed. Sue and Labour cost could not be recovered
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.