maccafferiCoC201506
The claimant manufacturer challenged a refusal of indemnity from his insurers, the defendants under its product liability policy. An end user consumer had been injured. The insurer said that the claimant had delayed on notifying the possible claim.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘the likelihood of a claim cannot simply be inferred from the happening of an accident’ and ‘when the accident occurred, there was not at least a fifty per cent chance that a claim against the Claimant would eventuate. There had been an accident. The gun was involved. It was a possibility, but not more, that the accident involved a fault in the gun. But there were other possibilities: a fault in the way in which the gun was used, or no fault at all.’
Knowles CBE J
[2015] EWHC 1708 (Comm)
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Layher Ltd v Lowe and Others CA 8-Jan-1997
The insurers became insolvent, and re-insurers sought to escape liability saying that no sums had been paid out to trigger the re-insurer’s liability.
Held: Re-Insurers were liable under a policy requiring them to pay out on sums paid out by . .
Cited – Verelst’s Administratrix v Motor Cross Union Insurance Company Limited 1925
The insured was killed in a motor accident in India on 14 January 1923. Knowledge of her death reached her personal representative in England within a month, but the personal representative did not know of the existence of the insurance policy until . .
Cited – Jacobs v Coster, Avon Insurance CA 25-Jan-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.549251
