Buyers of sugar to whom the risk of loss of the sugar but not the property in it had passed had an insurable interest.
Held: ‘Nobody can deny that this is a case of extreme difficulty and of great nicety. In my opinion it is the duty of a Court always to lean in favour of an insurable interest, if possible, for it seems to me that after underwriters have received the premium, the objection that there was no insurable interest is often, as nearly as possible, a technical objection, and one which has no real merit, certainly not as between the assured and the insurer. Of course we must not assume facts which do not exist, nor stretch the law beyond its proper limits, but we ought, I think, to consider the question with a mind, if the facts and the law will allow it, to find in favour of an insurable interest.’
 12 QBD 564
England and Wales
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 – Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey CA 26-Jun-2003
A policy providing a fixed level of benefit, calculated according to the degree of injury could not be avoided under the 1744 Act on the basis that the insured had no insurable interest. The insurance company said the company had no insurable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184478