Tesco voluntarily agreed to indemnify a third party for economic loss. When that third party claimed under the indemnity for economic losses arising out of damage to property of another, Tesco sought to claim under its own public liability insurance covering ‘all sums for which the Insured shall be liable at law for damages in respect of . . loss of damage to material property.’
Held: Tesco’s appeal failed.
Tuckey LJ said: ‘A public liability policy provides cover against liability to the public at large. By contrast private liability arises from contracts entered into between individuals. Public liability in this sense arises in tort; it does not and cannot arise only in contract. As a general rule a claim in tort cannot be founded upon pure economic loss. So the judge was right to say that the fact that this was public liability insurance was important and that such policies do not generally cover liability in contract for pure economic loss. It is a strong pointer to the meaning of the words used. ‘
Judges:
Tuckey, Thomas and Hughes LJJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 362
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd. v Constable and others Comc 14-Sep-2007
The defendants provided insurance for the claimant to construct a train tunnel over which the claimant would build a supermarket. The tunnel collapsed, and the railway operator claimed for loss of revenues. The insurers denied responsibility saying . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Insurance
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267169
