The plaintiff was a member of a scheme providing permanent health insurance benefits. The issue was whether the insurance monies received by the plaintiff were to be treated as sick pay (and therefore deductible from the damages) or insurance monies falling within the insurance exception.
Held: ‘In my view it is quite wrong to treat the plaintiff’s membership of the Sick Pay Insurance Scheme in the present case as a contract of insurance within the meaning of the exception. There is no contract between the plaintiff and the insurance company. He did not pay the premiums. There is no evidence that the plaintiff would have got more pay but for the insurance, or that the existence of the insurance had an effect on his remuneration . .
I cannot accept Mr Purchas’s submission that it is immaterial whether the plaintiff paid or contributed to the premiums or gave consideration for the insurance in some other way. It seems to me that it is an essential requirement of the insurance exception that the cost of the insurance be borne wholly or at least in part by the plaintiff. There are cases where insurance is provided by the employer at no cost to the plaintiff . .’ The expected rate of return on damages to be invested is to be anticipated as what a prudent investor might achieve.
Judges:
Dyson LJ
Citations:
Gazette 30-Oct-1996, Times 24-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 784, [1996] PIQR Q26, [1997] 1 WLR 652, [1997] 1 All ER 673, (1997) 37 BMLR 111
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
Cited – Pirelli General Plc and others v Gaca CA 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was awarded damages from his employers, who claimed that the benefits received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the defendants had contributed should be set off against the claim.
Held: McCamley was no longer good . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.140651