References: (1783) 3 Dougl 246, [1783] EngR 109, (1783) 3 Doug 245, (1783) 99 ER 636
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Mansfield L, Butler, Willes, Ashurst, JJ
Ratio: An insurance otlice having paid the assured the amount of the loss sustained by him in consequence of a demolishing by rioters, sued the hundredors under the stat. I G. 1, at. 2, e. 5, s. 6, in their own names. HeId by Lord Mansfield and Butler, J. (Willes and Ashurst, J.J,, dissentient), that the office was not erititled to recover.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Simpson and Co v Thomson HL ((1877) 3 App Cas 279)
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . . - Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL (House of Lords, Times 13-Feb-02, Bailii, [2002] UKHL 4, [2002] 1 LLR 553, [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321, 2002 SLT 278, [2002] CLC 741, 2002 SC (HL) 117, [2002] BLR 139, 2002 SCLR 346, 2002 GWD 6-178)
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 01-Jan-18
Ref: 191157