The insured had gone cave diving on holiday, and was injured. He assigned his cause of action to the claimant. The insurers declined to pay saying that diving was excluded as a hazardous activity. The claimant appealed against rejection of the claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The appeal grounds included in effect appeals as to the facts. However the policy was unclear, and ‘ once the policy is read with scuba diving recognised as a hazardous activity which is covered, then if some particular form of scuba diving or some particular activity whilst scuba diving is not to be covered, that can only be as a result of one or other of the general exclusions applying. It is simply not permissible to construe the cover as covering only that which the insurers have in their own minds identified as a less hazardous form of scuba diving.’
Judges:
Waller VP CA, Thomas, Aikens LJJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 1640
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Insurance, Personal Injury
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372348
