The insurance slip was superseded by a formal policy. This was agreed but the defendant reinsurers submitted that the slip could be looked at as an aid to the construction of the policy.
Held: It was inadmissible: ‘The drafting of the slip formed no part of the relevant matrix in this case. That matrix was the background to the commercial adventure that formed the subject matter of the contract, not the mechanism by which the parties set about negotiating and reaching agreement . . the strict application of the parol evidence rule has a particular justification in a case such as the present. An insurance slip customarily sets out a shorthand version of the contract of insurance, in terms which may be neither clear nor complete. Where, as here, the slip provides for the formal wording to be agreed by the leading underwriter, the other subscribers to the risk anticipate and agree that the leading underwriter will, on their behalf, agree the final wording of the slip and that of the formal contract which is embodied in the policy give rise to the possibility that the natural meaning of the slip differs from that of the policy, the natural assumption is and should be that the wording of the policy has been designed the better to reflect the agreement between the parties. To refer to the slip as an aid to the construction of the policy runs counter to one of the objects of replacing the slip with the policy.’ and ”In the context of contracts of insurance the Courts have been particularly ready to depart from a literal meaning of the words used in order to produce a result that makes commercial sense ‘
Judges:
Phillips J
Citations:
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 423
Citing:
See also – Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (‘The Superhulls Cover-Case) (No 2) QBD 1990
In estoppel it is necessary for there to have been an unequivocal representation of fact by words or conduct: ‘A party can represent that he will not enforce a specific legal right by words or conduct. He can say so expressly – this of course he can . .
Cited by:
See also – Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (‘The Superhulls Cover-Case) (No 2) QBD 1990
In estoppel it is necessary for there to have been an unequivocal representation of fact by words or conduct: ‘A party can represent that he will not enforce a specific legal right by words or conduct. He can say so expressly – this of course he can . .
Appeal from – Youell and Others v Bland Welch and Co Ltd and Others CA 1992
The court considered whether an underwiter’s slip was admissible when construing the policy which followed.
Held: Staughton LJ said: ‘It is now, in my view, somewhat old-fashioned to approach such a problem armed with the parol evidence rule, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Contract
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.199923