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 and material non-disclosure.
Held: The assured was not prevented fromm relying on a non-invalidation clause where damage is in fact caused before the assured is able to give notice of the increased risk. ‘There is no justification . . for denying an assured the benefit of the non-invalidation clause where, there having been a breach of warranty unknown to the assured or beyond his control which increases the risk of damage, damage is in fact caused before he learns of the breach of warranty. A breach of warranty will usually increase the risk of damage and so effect is given to the words ‘which increases the risk of damage’. The argument advanced by counsel for the Defendant was, in effect (albeit not counsel’s intention), an alternative way of suggesting that the non-invalidation clause, contrary to my view, did not apply to breaches of warranty. The clause enables the assured to advance his claim notwithstanding an act, omission or alteration which has increased the risk of damage, such as a breach of warranty, so long as the act, omission or alteration is unknown to or beyond the control of the assured and he gives immediate notice of it once aware of it and pays the additional premium required.’

Teare J
[2011] EWHC 1761 (Comm)
England and Wales
CitedGreenock Steamship Co v Maritime Insurance Co 1903
. .
CitedMentz, Decker and Co v Maritime Insurance Co 1910
. .
CitedLiberian Insurance Agency v Mosse 1977
. .
CitedAnsari v New India Assurance Ltd CA 18-Feb-2009
The insured appealed against the refusal of his claim under a commercial policy of his premises which had been damaged in a fire. . .
CitedFNCB Ltd v Barnet Devanney and Co Ltd CA 1-Jul-1999
An insurance broker was asked to provide insurance to protect a mortgagee but did not arrange mortgage protection cover.
Held: He was in breach of his contract even though the law relating to such insurance was unsure. He was not entitled to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.448077