The second defendant insurers appealed a finding of liability, saying that the insured had failed to provide its documents within a reasonable time in order to meet a condition to that effect in its terms. The documents had not been provided for more than two and a half years, but the judge held that this had not prejudiced the insurers.
Held: The insurer’s appeal succeeded. What consituted a reasonable time for the furnishing of documents to support a claim was a matter of fact in each case. The delay was clearly unreasonable, and there was no general rule of law that a lack of prejudice to the insurer was a sufficient excuse. In any event the insurer had suffered possible prejudice, by for example being unable to decide whether to take conduct of the action. May LJ: ‘On the one hand, it is commonplace that if you have to judge what is a reasonable time you take all relevant circumstances into account. Why then is not eventual prejudice to the insurer a relevant circumstance? On the other hand, there are other considerations than just whether eventually there is prejudice. Insurers are entitled to have co-operation and relevant information in good time to be able to assess that potential liability and to take appropriate action. Appropriate action could, importantly in some cases, including deciding to take control of the defence of the case. ‘
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, May LJ, Gage LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 939, Times 26-Jul-2006
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Shinedean Ltd v Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd and Another TCC 28-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – Welch v Royal Exchange Assurance CA 1938
The court was asked whether compliance with a clause in the insurance contract was a condition precedent. There was also a question whether the insured could rely on facts arising after the making of their claim.
Held: If a clause does not set . .
Cited – George Hunt Cranes Ltd v Scottish Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd CA 2002
Provisions in a policy which are stated to be conditions precedent should not be treated as a mere formality which is to be evaded at the cost of a forced and unnatural construction of the words used in the policy. They should be construed fairly to . .
Cited – Barrett Bros (Taxis) Ltd v Davies Lickiss and Milestone Motor Policies at Lloyd’s, Third Parties CA 1966
The court was asked whether notice had in substance been properly given by an insured so as to allow a claim to be made under an insurance policy. The County Court judge held that there had been a breach of condition and that the insurers were . .
Cited – Diab v Regent Insurance Company Ltd PC 19-Jun-2006
(Belize) The appellant’s premises were destroyed by fire. The insurer respondents refused payment, saying that the claimant had delayed notification, had stored ammunition, and had started the fire himself.
Held: Lord Scott referered to his . .
Cited – Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd v National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd 1985
The case concerned the construction of a policy containing terms requiring the insured to notify the insurers ‘immediately’ if he had knowledge of any accident, claim or proceedings.
Held: In any case where an insurer is entitled to rely on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Contract
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242973