Simpson and Co v Thomson: HL 1877

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 is for this reason that (according to the English mode of procedure) they would have to make it in his name;’


Lord Cairns


(1877) 3 App Cas 279




CitedRandal v Cockran 17-Jun-1948
An insurer who has fully indemnified an insured against a loss covered by a contract of insurance between them may ordinarily enforce, in the insurer’s own name, any right of recourse available to the insured. . .
CitedMason v Sainsbury 19-Apr-1782
A claim was made upon insurance after a riot. The court asked asked ‘Who is first liable?’ This was not an issue of chronology but of establishing where the primary responsibility lay to make good the loss. The Act laid the primary responsibility . .
CitedLondon Assurance Company v SainsburyWood Immigration 28-Jun-1783
An insurance office 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. . .
CitedYates v Whyte 1838
Plaintiff sued Defendants for damaging his ship by collision : Held, that Defendants were not entitled to deduct from the amount of damages to be paid by them, a sum of money paid to Plaintiff by insurers in respect of such damage. . .
CitedDickenson v Jardine CCP 1868
Goods had been insured for the voyage, but were jettisoned on it. The ship completed her voyage, and the owners of the goods became entitled to recover general average contribution from the other interests which had profited from the jettison. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191160