S - Scope of indemnity
14/12/23
THE UNIVERSITY OF EXETER v ALLIANZ INSURANCE PLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1484
Bomb damage was occasioned by two concurrent causes, namely the dropping of the bomb in 1942 and its detonation in 2021. As the causes were of equal efficacy and one (war damage) was excluded from cover under an insurance policy, no claim could be made under the policy applying the rule in Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd v Employers Liability Incorporation Ltd (1974).
5/3/20
ENDURANCE CORPORATE CAPITAL LTD v SARTEX QUILTS & TEXTILES LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 308
The insured did not have to show a genuine, fixed and settled intention to reinstate a property to recover the cost of reinstatement under a building insurance policy.
21/12/15
CAPITA (BANSTEAD 2011) LTD v RFIB GROUP LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 1310
On 30 April 2004 the defendant transferred shares in a pension management company to the first claimant. The company gave the pension trustees and employer negligent advice before the share transfer date but the advice continued to cause loss after that date. Claims by the trustees and employer were settled. The first claimant claimed to recover from the defendant under an indemnity in the share sale agreement. The court held that the indemnity only covered loss caused by pre-transfer conduct. Failure to correct the negligent advice in the interim did not give rise to a fresh cause of action every day after the mistake had been made, so post-transfer loss continued to be referable to the pre-transfer conduct and fell within the scope of the indemnity. But deliberate misrepresentations in late 2004 did give rise to fresh causes of action which had been concurrent causes of loss and as a result post-2004 loss was not recoverable under the indemnity.
12/9/13
The destruction of a warehouse in a fire during the 2011 London riots had been caused by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together within the meaning of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 s 2(1). Compensation payable under s 2(1) was limited to physical damage to the premises and did not cover consequential losses such as loss of profit or rent.
28/2/13
ASTRAZENECA INSURANCE CO LTD v XL INSURANCE (BERMUDA) LTD [2013] EWHC 349 (Comm)
Under a Bermuda Form contract expressed to be governed by English Law, the insured was only entitled to be indemnified if it could demonstrate that it was under an actual, not merely arguable, liability
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer