Citations:

[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd and Others v Aviva Insurance Ltd and Others ComC 1-Nov-2011
The claimant’s fish restaurant had burned down. The court was asked to make a preliminary determination of issues on construction on insurance policy. The insured sought to evade what the insurer said were breaches of warranty, misrepresentations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.449876

Citations:

[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 493

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Balfour v Beaumont 1984
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.372861

Citations:

[1854] EngR 9, (1854) 3 El and Bl 48, (1854) 118 ER 1058

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.292866

Citations:

[1989] 2 Lloyds Rep 227

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Presidential Insurance Company v Molly Hosein Stafford PC 22-Mar-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Mrs Stafford obtained judgment against a driver insured by the appellant. He was unable to satisfy the claim and she sought recovery from the insurers. They claimed that their liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.200467

ComC Insurance – avoidance of contract of insurance – negligence in presentation of claim

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Unreported, 07 March 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186003

An insured cannot recover damages at large for an insurer’s failure to pay. Interest on sums due under a policy is adequate compensation for late payment; this is so, even if an insurer deliberately withholds sums which he knows to be due under a policy.

Citations:

[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Apostolos Konstantine Ventouris v Trevor Rex Mountain, The Italia Express No 2 QBD 1992
A contract of marine insurance is not one to provide peace of mind or freedom from distress.
An assured cannot recover for losses caused by the insurer’s wrongful refusal to pay a valid claim. Interest on the sum is an adequate compensation. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others (Alexandros T) ComC 19-Dec-2011
Starlight had sued its insurers for payment under policies with regard to the Alexandros T. After allegations of serious misconduct were made against some of the insurance underwiters, the matter was settled with full liabiity under the terms of a . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540462

A contract of marine insurance is not one to provide peace of mind or freedom from distress.
An assured cannot recover for losses caused by the insurer’s wrongful refusal to pay a valid claim. Interest on the sum is an adequate compensation.

Judges:

Hirst J

Citations:

[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others (Alexandros T) ComC 19-Dec-2011
Starlight had sued its insurers for payment under policies with regard to the Alexandros T. After allegations of serious misconduct were made against some of the insurance underwiters, the matter was settled with full liabiity under the terms of a . .
Approved – Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd CA 1999
An insured cannot recover damages at large for an insurer’s failure to pay. Interest on sums due under a policy is adequate compensation for late payment; this is so, even if an insurer deliberately withholds sums which he knows to be due under a . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540461

ComC Lloyd’s Litigation – Misrepresentation, fraudulent – Rescission, restitutio in integrum – Rescission, effect on third parties’ rights – Anti-set-off clauses, counterclaim for fraud – Pay now, sue later clauses, counterclaim for fraud – Lloyd’s, membership, rescission – Misrepresentation Act 1967, Section 3, meaning – Stay of Execution, contractually excluded

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[1997] CLC 1012, [1997] 6 Re L.R. 214

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Society of Lloyd’s v D Leighs and Others; Society of Lloyd’s v D Wilkinson and Others ComC 20-Feb-1997
ComC Lloyd’s Litigation – issues relating to recovery from names.
Held: A name at Lloyd’s grants a power of attorney to the underwriting agent to execute that power which is irrevocable. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Society of Lloyd’s v Leighs; Lyon and Wilkinson and Canadian Names Intervenors CA 31-Jul-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220772

Insurers were liable to Landlords for reinstatement not withstanding sale.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83197

An insurance company repudiating liability under a contract of insurance on the ground of fraud cannot claim that action is barred by the non-fulfilment of a condition-precedent to the contract.
Decision of Court of Appeal reversed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor(Viscount Haldane), Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Parker, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 907, 52 SLR 907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620735

Claim under fire policy

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 834 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620123

Construction summons

Judges:

Sir Ross Cranston

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 900 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614934

The court described the origin of the necessity of giving a notice of abandonment in a shipping insurance claim and explained its function.
Brett LJ said: ‘This case raises the questions of abandonment and notice of abandonment on a policy of marine insurance. Before I enter upon the merits of the present case I think it desirable to state my view of the law.
I agree that there is a distinction between abandonment and notice of abandonment, and I concur in what has been said by Lord Blackburn, that abandonment is not peculiar to policies of marine insurance; abandonment is part of every contract of indemnity. Whenever, therefore, there is a contract of indemnity and a claim under it for an absolute indemnity, there must be an abandonment on the part of the person claiming indemnity of all his right in respect of that for which he receives indemnity. The doctrine of abandonment in cases of marine insurance arises where the assured claims for a total loss. There are two kinds of total loss; one which is called an actual total loss, another which in legal language is called a constructive total loss; but in both the assured claims as for a total loss. Abandonment, however, is applicable to the claim, whether it be for an actual total loss or for a constructive total loss. If there is anything to abandon, abandonment must take place; as, for instance, when the loss is an actual total loss, and that which remains of a ship is what has been called a congeries of planks, there must be an abandonment of the wreck. Or where goods have been totally lost, as in the case of Roux v. Salvador, but something has been produced by the loss, which would not be the goods themselves, if it were of any value at all, it must be abandoned. But that abandonment takes place at the time of the settlement of the claim; it need not take place before.
and
With regard to the notice of abandonment, ‘I am not aware that in any contract of indemnity, except in the case of contracts of marine insurance, a notice of abandonment is required. In the case of marine insurance where the loss is an actual total loss, no notice of abandonment is necessary; but in the case of a constructive total loss it is necessary, unless it be excused. How, then, did it arise that a notice of abandonment was imported into a contract of marine insurance? Some judges have said it is a necessary equity that the insurer, in the case of a constructive total loss, should have the option of being able to take such steps as he may think best for the preservation of the thing abandoned from further deterioration. I doubt if that is the origin of the necessity of giving a notice of abandonment. It seems to me to have been introduced into contracts of marine insurance – as many other stipulations have been introduced – by the consent of shipowner and underwriter, and so to have become part of the contract, and a condition precedent to the validity of a claim for a constructive total loss. The reason why it was introduced by the shipowner and underwriter is on account of the peculiarity of marine losses. These losses do not occur under the immediate notice of all the parties concerned. A loss may occur in any part of the world. It may occur under such circumstances that the underwriter can have no opportunity of ascertaining whether the information he received from the assured is correct or incorrect. The assured, if not present, would receive notice of the disaster from his agent, the master of the ship. The underwriter in general can receive no notice of what has occurred, unless from the assured, who is the owner of the ship or the owner of the goods, and there would therefore be great danger if the owner of a ship or of goods – that is the assured – might take any time that he pleased to consider whether he would claim as for a constructive total loss or not – there would be great danger that he would be taking time to consider what the state of the market might be, or many other circumstances, and would throw upon the underwriter a loss if the market were unfavourable, or take to himself the advantage if the market were favourable. These are the reasons why I think the assured and the underwriters came to the conclusion that it should be a part of the contract and a condition precedent that, where the claim is for a constructive total loss, there must be notice of abandonment, unless there were circumstances which excused it.’
and ‘Notice of abandonment, therefore, being a part of the contract, questions arose as to the time when that notice should be given. The first question which arose was whether the notice must be given at the first moment that the assured heard of the loss, or at some subsequent period. It was, however, decided that it is not at the moment of the first hearing of the loss notice of abandonment must be given, but that the assured must have a reasonable time to ascertain the nature of the loss with which he is made acquainted; if he hears merely that his ship is damaged, that may not be enough to enable him to decide whether he ought to abandon or not; he must have certain and accurate information as to the nature of the damage. Now, sometimes the information which he receives discloses at once the imminent danger of the subject-matter of insurance becoming and continuing a total loss; as, for instance, if he hears his ship is captured in time of war, it must be obvious to everybody, unless the ship is re-captured, it would be a total loss; or if he hears that the ship is stranded, and her back is broken, although she retains her character as a ship, if he gets information upon which any reasonable man must conclude that there is very imminent danger of her being lost, the moment he gets that information he must immediately give notice of abandonment. The law that has been laid down is, that immediately the assured has reliable information of such damage to the subject-matter of insurance as that there is imminent danger of its becoming a total loss, then he must at once, unless there be some reason to the contrary, give notice of abandonment; but if the information which he first receives is not sufficient to enable him to say whether there is that imminent danger, then he has a reasonable time to acquire full information as to the state and nature of the damage done to the ship.
and ‘But then there arose another question. Ships, or goods, or the subject-matters of marine insurance, are liable to danger at various parts of the globe, where neither the assured nor the underwriter is present; and upon the emergency the master of the ship being there alone, must act. Now, under those circumstances, masters have often sold either ship or goods; and masters have had to consider whether they would sell the ship or goods even in cases where such ship or goods are not insured. The general rule with regard to the propriety of a master selling the ship or the goods, is that he has no right to sell either the ship or the goods without the consent of the owner, but if necessity arises the master becomes what is called, from the necessity of the thing, the agent to bind his owner by a sale, or to bind the owner of goods by a sale. Now, the rule I should say from the necessity of things, at all events from the justice of things, is this, that if the circumstances are such that any reasonable person having authority from the owner would sell, then the master is entitled to sell, although he has not such authority. The question, I think, as between the person to whom a master sells and the owner of the property, is whether the circumstances were those which would have caused a reasonable owner, had he been present, to sell. If that state of things exists, the master has authority to sell, and his act is binding upon the owner of the ship or goods. Where, therefore, there has been a constructive total loss of either ship or goods, circumstances may have arisen which would justify the master in selling, or they may not; there may be a constructive total loss without any sale, and there may also be a constructive total loss accompanied by a sale. If the first information which the assured,, not being present, has of the damage which has occurred to his ship, or being the owner of goods of the damage which has occurred to his goods, although they were not an actual total loss by reason of the perils of the seas, is accompanied also by information that the master has sold, and if the circumstances of that sale were justifiable, so that the property passed to the vendee, under those circumstances that is the time when, if at all, the assured would be bound to give notice of abandonment; but in others that doctrine seems to be questioned. In Rankin v. Potter the law was established that where at the time when the assured receives information which would otherwise oblige him to give notice of abandonment, at the same time he hears that the subject-matter of the insurance has been sold so as to pass the property away, inasmuch as there was nothing of the subject-matter of the insurance which he could abandon, notice of abandonment was not necessary. No doubt the reason given for this was that notice at that time and under such circumstances would be a mere idle ceremony; it could be of no use. That was the point decided in Rankin v. Potter. In those particular circumstances it was held that notice of abandonment need not be given because there was nothing to abandon. That in one sense is true; but if goods had been sold it is obvious there must be something to abandon, that is the proceeds of the sale; the money which is the proceeds of the sale, when the insurance is settled, is abandoned; but where there is nothing of the subject-matter of insurance to abandon, there is no ship to abandon, there are no materials of the ship to abandon, there are no goods to abandon, notice of abandonment under those circumstances was said to be futile. But Rankin v. Potter went no further; it did not decide – because the point was not raised – that if, at the time when the assured had to make up his mind and when otherwise he ought to abandon, there was no sale of the subject-matter of the insurance, the assured would be excused from giving notice of abandonment if he was able to shew that, had he given such notice, in the result it would have turned out to be of no use. It was argued before us that the necessary inference to be drawn from Rankin v. Potter was, although there had been no sale of the subject-matter of the insurance when information of the disaster was received by the assured, yet if he could shew that before any notice of abandonment could reach the underwrite and before the underwriters orders could reach the assured a sale could take place, so that had the assured given notice of abandonment such notice would have been of no use to the underwriter, the assured would be excused from giving it. That point, however, is not raised here, and therefore it becomes unnecessary to decide it. I am not prepared to say that if it could be shewn that the subject-matter of insurance, at the time when the assured has information upon which otherwise he would be bound to act, is in such a condition that it would absolutely perish and disappear, before notice could be received or any answer returned, that that might not excuse the assured from giving notice of abandonment, but I am prepared to say that nothing short of that would excuse him; and although I do not say what I have stated would excuse him, I am not prepared to say it would not; that is the limit to which I think the doctrine could be carried, and it seems to me that to go further than that would let in the danger to provide against which the doctrine of notice of abandonment was introduced into the contract and made a part of the contract’.
Cotton LJ: ‘I give no opinion on the question which arises when the state of the thing insured is such that before the communication could have reached the underwriters it must, so far as human probability goes, have ceased to be in specie.’

Judges:

Brett LJ, Cotton LJ

Citations:

[1878] 3 CPD 467

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.251808

Citations:

[2018] ScotCS CSIH – 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Insurance

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609347

Bailhache J discussed the principle that if there is a qualification of the general risk which covers the policy’s whole scope (so that there is no unqualified risk left), the burden is on the insured to prove facts which bring the case within the general risk as qualified: ‘When the promise is qualified by exceptions, the question whether the plaintiff need prove facts which negative their application does not depend upon whether the exceptions are to be found in a separate clause or not. The question depends upon an entirely different consideration, namely, whether the exception is as wide as the promise, and thus qualifies the whole of the promise, or whether it merely excludes from the operation of the promise particular classes of cases which but for the exception would fall within it, leaving some part of the general scope of the promise unqualified. If so, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to bring himself prima facie within the terms of the promise, leaving it to the defendant to prove that, although prima facie within its terms, the plaintiff”s case is in fact within the excluded exceptional class . .
When a promise is qualified by an exception which covers the whole scope of the promise, a plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case unless he brings himself within the promise as qualified. There is ex hypothesi no unqualified part of the promise for the sole of his foot to stand upon. . .
Whether a promise is a promise with exceptions or whether it is a qualified promise is in every case a question of construction of the instrument as a whole.’

Judges:

Bailhache J

Citations:

[1918] 2 KB 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Channon (T/A Channon and Co) v Ward QBD 12-May-2015
The claimant had lost significant sums through his accountancy practice, but now claimed that his insurance broker, the defendant had negligently failed to renew his professional indemnity policies, even though he had supplied policy numbers to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.572352

The insurers insured against an adverse sea but not against defective manufacture or design. Both were found to be proximate causes of the loss.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judge that the owners could claim under the policy.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dicta applied – Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 1973
The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .
Appeal from – J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd ‘The Miss Jay Jay’ 1985
Mustill J considered liability under a marine insurance where damage was suffered when the sea state was within what might reasonably be anticipated: ‘The cases make it quite plain that if the action of the wind or sea is the immediate cause of the . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
Cited – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad CA 17-Dec-2009
An oil rig suffered major damage in transit in rough seas. The insurers repudiated liability saying that the damages was the result of a natural vice rather than perils at sea.
Held: The fact that the sea conditions were within the range of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.245856

A claim was made under an all risks insurance policy on goods taken out by a firm of wharfingers. There was an excess of andpound;100 each and every claim. During the currency of the policy the wharfingers misdelivered a total of 246 bales on 30 separate occasions.
Held: The word ‘claim’ in the excess clause meant ‘the occurrence of a state of facts which justifies a claim on underwriters. It did not refer to the assertion of a claim on underwriters’ ‘It seems to me quite absurd that the wharfingers’ right of recovery should be determined either by the form of the Bank’s letter of claim against the wharfingers or the form of the wharfingers’ claim against the underwriters. In other words, in my judgment, the operation of the Excess Clause is determined by the facts which give rise to the claim and not by the form in which the claim is asserted.’ There were 30 separate claims covering 30 separate misdeliveries, and that the deductible of andpound;100 applied to each claim.

Judges:

McNair J

Citations:

[1960] 2 Lloyds Rep 241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another PC 23-Jan-1997
(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.242423

The employer’s liability policy contained a condition precedent that the insured should take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and disease. The company sought to rely upon the clause to avoid liability.
Held: ”Reasonable’ does not mean reasonable as between the employer and the employee. It means reasonable as between the insured and the insurer having regard to the commercial purpose of the contract, which is inter alia to indemnify the insured against liability for his (the insured’s) personal negligence. That, too, is established by the case which I have cited. Obviously, the condition cannot mean that the insured must take measures to avert dangers which he does not himself foresee, although the hypothetical reasonably careful employer would foresee them. That would be repugnant to the commercial purpose of the contract, for failure to foresee dangers is one of the commonest grounds of liability in negligence. That, too, is established by the case which I have cited. Obviously, the condition cannot mean that the insured must take measures to avert dangers which he does not himself foresee, although the hypothetical reasonably careful employer would foresee them. That would be repugnant to the commercial purpose of the contract, for failure to foresee dangers is one of the commonest grounds of liability in negligence. What, in my view, is ‘reasonable’ as between the insured and the insurer, without being repugnant to the commercial object of the contract, is that the insured should not deliberately court a danger, the existence of which he recognises, by refraining from taking any measures to avert it.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 898

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club Plc v Avon Insurance Plc, Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, AGF Insurance Ltd IC Insurance Ltd ComC 15-Nov-2004
The claimant football club insured its players through the defendants. A footballer injured himself in training and his career was finished. The insurers rejected the claim, and relied upon exception clauses, saying that the true cause was a . .
Cited – Channon (T/A Channon and Co) v Ward QBD 12-May-2015
The claimant had lost significant sums through his accountancy practice, but now claimed that his insurance broker, the defendant had negligently failed to renew his professional indemnity policies, even though he had supplied policy numbers to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.219696

cw Insurance – agreement to limit liability – claims arising from one cause – personal indemnity insurance

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Unreported, 27 July 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confirmed on appeal to – AXA Reinsurance UK Plc v Field CA 10-Oct-1995
Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract. . .

Cited by:

Confirmed on appeal from – AXA Reinsurance UK Plc v Field CA 10-Oct-1995
Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.182578

Insurance was issued by a pool of insurers. One company failed to meet its obligations, and the court had to decide how the defaulted payment was to be contributed from other pool members and the re-insurers. The parties had thought that the risks were merely of run-off liability, but the risks had been massively increased by asbestos claims in the US.
Held: The risks covered by the re-insurance related to business written through one syndicate, and did not relate to the instant risks which arose from insolvency. The re-insurance did not cover the obligation to meet the contribution expected from the insolvent pool member. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Lady Justice Butler-Sloss Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Aldous

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.145848

A loss review was not halted for pending litigation. There was no unity of issues.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86322

Those wishing to pursue challenge to the proposals for the Lloyd’s litigation are to issue proceedings before May 16 1997.

Citations:

Times 09-May-1997

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84716

An insurer’s failure to obtain a release certificate left him liable for damages

Citations:

Times 28-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 151

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83494

All involved in litigation were requested to clarify stages of settlement of cases.

Citations:

Times 08-Oct-1996

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83119

Warning for all outstanding Lloyds’ litigation cases on costs implications given.

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-1996

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83120

Description of current status of various strands of LLoyd’s litigation, explaining where each of the six groups of actions had got to.

Judges:

Justice Cresswell

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1996

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83121

Any former name at Lloyd’s who wished to claim fraud against the Lloyd’s underwriters as to the basis on which they subscribed in view of impending asbestos litigation, must contact and notify the solicitors involved in the group action or otherwise risk debarment from later advancing such allegations.

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-1999

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83114

The claimants insured their yacht with the defendants for a value as certified by an independent valuer. The defendants claimed he had misrepresented the value in the proposal. The words ‘sum insured’ indicated a ceiling on a claim on an unvalued policy. There was no indication from the insurers on the proposal form that they would agree the value, but rather they asked only for the value to be insured. The policy was therefore an unvalued policy.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Mar-2000, Times 31-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906

Insurance

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82876

Benefit of Mortgage indemnity insurance not set off against negligent valuation.

Citations:

Times 23-May-1996

Insurance

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80382

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Third Directive 90/232/EEC – Article 1 – Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver – Compulsory insurance – Direct effect of directives – Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive – Whether the State may rely on a directive against an individual

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:223, [2018] EUECJ C-122/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Insurance

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608650

The court was asked whether or not the claimant is (and has been) entitled to claim payments from the defendant under an income protection policy of insurance.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2415 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.597496

The insurance company appealed against a finding tha it was not entitled to rely upon an exemption clause to refuse a claim. They said that an earlier possible similar claim had not been notified.

Judges:

Black DBE, cristopher ClarkeLJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 1302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.592417

Claim under a combined insurance policy in which the claimant seeks payment of monies said to be due under the physical damage and business interruption sections of that policy, arising from physical damage to and the failure of a Heidelberg Speedmaster CD 102 – 6LX printing press

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 83 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602977

Car insurance: alleged misrepresentation by consumer

Citations:

[2017] ScotCS CSOH – 127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Insurance

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598638

Application for approval of transfer of insurance business.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2134 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593151

The court considered the effect of section 1(3) on a ‘pay to be paid’ clause in a re-insurance contract.
Held: If, as a matter of construction of the membership rules, the condition survived the making of a winding-up order – which he thought it did not) the condition sought directly to alter the rights of the parties in a winding up, and so could not be given effect.

Judges:

Mr Justice Staughton

Citations:

[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 299

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dicta Adopted – Re Allobrogia Steamship Corporation 1979
The court considered the effect, on the insolvency of the insured, of ‘pay to be paid’ conditions in contracts of insurance. It was asked to order the winding-up of a foreign registered company. The company had to own assets within the jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

Cited – Freakley and Curzon Insurance Ltd v Centre Reinsurance International Company and Another; similar CA 11-Feb-2005
Claims were made for personal injury caused by asbestos. The re-insurers sought declaratory relief against the head insurers, and the administrators of the insolvent company. The administrators sought declarations in turn. Curzon insured the company . .
Appeal from – Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (Padri Island) (No 2); Firma CF-Trade SA v Similar (Fanti) CA 30-Nov-1989
The court considered appeals from conflicting interpretations of the effect of s1(3) of the 1930 Act on pay to be paid clauses in the event of the insolvency of the insured.
Held: The condition did not purport to avoid the contract or to alter . .
Appeal from – The Fanti and The Padre Island CA 1989
. .
At First Instance – Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (‘The FANTI’) HL 1991
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.223313

Appeal against the rejection by Eder J of a claim against insurers for alleged business interruption (‘BI’) losses said to have arisen in respect of goods stolen by a trusted employee

Judges:

Treacy, David Richards LJJ, Sir Christopher Clarke

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 4097

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591921

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1919 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 520, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep IR 45, [2017] BPIR 1692, [2018] 1 WLR 280, [2018] PIQR P2

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591314

The court was asked whether or not the claimant is (and has been) entitled to receive payments from the defendant under an income protection policy of insurance on the basis that he is suffering from moderate to severe chronic fatigue syndrome (‘CFS’). The defendant contends that the claimant is not so entitled because he is either faking or, at least, seriously exaggerating his illness. A further issue, however, also arises as to whether the defendant is entitled to avoid the policy on the additional ground that the claimant is in breach of the terms of the policy having understated his income to the defendant on two occasions after the claim had been made.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1583 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589911

Judges:

Knowles J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 843 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588907

Challenge to rejection of claim under fire insurance policy on the grounds of misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure and/or have been discharged from liability by breaches of warranty on the part of Dalecroft. The misrepresentations and/or non-disclosures relied upon by the Underwriters principally (though by no means exclusively) relate to the description and condition of the Property. The breaches of warranty relied on principally relate to the commercial un-occupancy conditions of the policy.

Judges:

Salter QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1263 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588911

A proposed assured had no duty to disclose or enquire as to facts which were not within his knowledge at the time when he applied for insurance, but his duty did extend to matters which it would normally within his purview to know.

Judges:

Judge Diamond QC

Citations:

Times 21-Jul-1994

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 17 18 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.89267

Appeal from dismissal of claim for indemnity under insurance policy

Judges:

McFarlane, Briggs, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 357

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583647

Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The insured sought to recover for the loss of a building by fire. The insurer said that the claimant had not proved his loss (it waas a valued policy), and that the building itself was not insured.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2017] UKPC 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Insurance

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582136

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 18, 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement – Articles 5(1) and 53(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) – Tax legislation which in particular provides for less favourable treatment of contributions to occupational pension schemes paid to insurance undertakings established abroad, taxes in Belgium capital, and surrender values, paid to beneficiaries having transferred their residence abroad, and obliges insurance undertakings established abroad to have a representative residing in Belgium to ensure the payment of the annual tax on insurance contract

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-522/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Commission v Belgium C-522/04 ECJ 5-Jul-2007
ECJ (Freedom Of Establishment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of movement for workers Freedom to provide services Freedom of establishment Free movement of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580992

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 352 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577291

Application by the Claimant insured, Spire Healthcare Limited for declaratory relief as to the effect of certain provisions of the combined liability insurance policy it held with the Defendant insurer.

Waksman QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC 3278 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572632

Appeal against arbitration award.

Sir Jeremy Cooke
[2016] EWHC 2515 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570435

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 insurance company declined to pay out under the Act.
Held: The purpose of the Act was to prevent gaming with life policies, by ensuring that the policy owner had an interest in the event insured. The court should consider only whether the insurable interest it had found for section 1, had been insured in a manner which could be characterized as gaming or wagering at the time of the insurance contract.

Mr Justice Langley
Times 17-Jun-2002, Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 868 (Commercial), [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 807, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 492
Bailii
Life Assurance Act 1774 1 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Dalby v The India and London Life Assurance Company HL 9-May-1851
An insurance company (Anchor) had taken out insurance with the defendant on the life of the Duke of Cambridge in the sum of pounds 1000 for which it paid a yearly premium during the life of the Duke. Anchor had itself granted policies of insurance . .
Distinguished – Hebdon v West 13-Feb-1863
Hebdon claimed under a policy with ILA in the sum of pounds 2500 on the life of X. Hebdon was employed in a bank of which X was the senior and managing partner. In 1855 Hebdon was employed on a seven-year contract at pounds 600 a year. He also owed . .
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited – Lucena v Craufurd HL 1806
Before the declaration of war, against the United Provinces, His Majesty’s ships took possession of several ships belonging to Dutch East India men, and took them to St Helena. The Commissioners then insured the ships for their journey from St . .
Cited – Paterson v Powell 1832
The purpose of the 1774 Act was to prevent ‘gaming’ in the disguise of insurance and in the sense of gambling on the outcome of an uncertain event in which the ‘assured’ had no interest save for the interest created by the very gamble or agreement . .
Cited – Stock v Inglis CA 1884
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 . .
Cited – Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Limited HL 1925
Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company also owed him substantial sums. He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. When he came to claim, his . .
Cited – 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 – Deepak Fertilisers v ICI Chemicals CA 1991
P’s methanol plant had been constructed with the use of know-how and services supplied by D. Following completion the plant exploded. The plaintiff sued D for negligence and breach of contract. The plaintiff had undertaken to indemnify D against . .
Cited – Sharp v Sphere Drake Insurance plc (The Moonacre) 1992
S, a retired businessman, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. In the winter, the boat was laid up, but occupied by a workman who maintained it and kept it secure. The boat was destroyed by a . .
Cited – Siu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd PC 16-Dec-1993
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 . .
Cited – Anderson v Morice 1875
A purchaser of a cargo was held to have no insurable interest in the cargo itself until the risk had passed to him on completion of loading. The only possible insurable interest was on the profits from sale of the cargo but not on the cargo itself . .
Cited – Glengate-KG Properties Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd and Others CA 12-Jan-1996
NU the insurer of a consequential loss insurance policy, appealed against the decision, on a claim brought by G, the owners of a property under redevelopment, which had suffered a fire as to G’s resultant loss of rental income from the property. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.

Insurance

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.173989

[2016] ScotSC 40
Bailii
Scotland

Insurance

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567229

The court was asked whether a company, insured under a policy providing cover against fire, is, or may be, entitled to an indemnity consisting of the cost of reinstatement after the building insured was destroyed by fire.

Laws, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1003
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.570111

Cooke J
[2016] EWHC 160 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560181

(From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) The Board was asked whether a victim of negliget driving had a right to a direct claim against the negligent driver’s insurers.

Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKPC 47
Bailii
Commonwealth

Insurance

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556500

application in an insurance transfer case

[2011] EWHC 1667 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551963

Appeal from refusal of fire insurance claim.

Rafferty, Kitchin, Gloster LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 671
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549772

[2014] EW Misc 52 (CC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542749

[2014] EWHC 163 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521090