Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant policy.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘There are two reasons why their Lordships prefer the decision in Mark Rowlands . . In the first place the words ‘event or events’ in section 2, while apt to describe the loss of the vessel are hardly apt to describe . . liability arising under the common law, as a consequence of the loss of the vessel. Secondly, section 2 must take colour from the short title and preamble to Section 1. By no stretch of the imagination could indemnity insurance be described as a ‘mischievous kind of gaming’. Their Lordships are entitled to give section 2 a meaning which corresponds with the obvious legislative intent.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘For present purposes the law can be summarised shortly. (1) An undisclosed principal may sue and be sued on a contract made by an agent on his behalf, acting within the scope of his actual authority. (2) In entering into the contract, the agent must intend to act on the principal’s behalf. (3) The agent of an undisclosed principal may also sue and be sued on the contract. (4) Any defence which the third party may have against the agent is available against his principal. (5) The terms of the contract may, expressly or by implication, exclude the principal’s right to sue, and his liability to be sued. The contact itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that the agent is the true and only principal.’
Lord Lloyd
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 16-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 AC 199, [1994] 1 All ER 213, [1994] 2 WLR 370
Insurance Act 1774 2
Commonwealth
Citing:
Applied – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Cited by:
Cited – Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .
Cited – Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.89287