The insurance company appealed a finding of liability under a household poliicy where the defendant had set a fire in a factory, but had not intended the eventual disastrous consequences.
Held: To avoid liability under an exclusion clause the question for the insurers was not whether the act which caused the fire was intended, but whether the consequences had been intended.
Judges:
Tuckey LJ, Thomas LJ, Hallett LJ
Citations:
Times 08-May-2006
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Young and Harston’s Contract CA 1885
The court set out what was meant by the term ‘wilful default’ when used in a contract for the sale of land. Bowen LJ said: ‘Wilful is a word of familiar use in every branch of law, and although in some branches of the law it may have a special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.242602