CASE LAW Flashcards
KING & QUEENS GRANIERIES (1877)
- Contribution - same interest
- Bailee & owner insured for grain. Fire. Bailee Insurer paid, tried to recover from Owner insurer. Court held not concurrent policy as does not have same subject matter. Therefore no contribution
PAWSEY V SCOTTISH UNION & NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY (1908).
“The active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events, which bringd about as a result, w/o the intervention of any force started & working actively from a new & independent source.”
CASTELLIAN V PRESENTON (1883)
Subrogation - Definition
“the underwriter is entitled to take every advantage of every right the assured, by the exercise or acquiring of which right or condition the loss against which the assured is insured can be or has diminished.
MARK ROWLANDS LTD V BERNI INNS LTD (1986)
Subrogation - Exclusion
Lease provided that landlord would insure building and tenant was to contribute to premium and was relieved from repairing obligations under the lease in event of damage by insured event. Tenant negligently started fire. Landlords Insurer sought recovery. Was denied as the building was for the joint benefit of landlord and tenant and landlord was responsible for repairing obligations for damage and tenant was relieved of it’s repairing obligations and paid towards premium.
LLOYDS TSB V LLOYDS BANK (2001)
- Proximate Cause - Test for Causation
- But for test established. “But for the negligence or other wrong doing from the defendant would the damage have occurred.” If no, causation confirmed. If yes, causation not confirmed.
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen Bv v Romalpa Aluminium 1976.
Transfer of Ownership of Goods
-Romalpa Clause “Retention of Title”. Plantiff sold alminium foil to defendants. Defendant went into liquidation. Retention of title clause was incl in contract. Court found in favour of plaintiff as held that aluminium foil was not part of the liquidated companys assests as Romalpa had no interest in goods as hadn’t been paid for.
PINK V FLEMING (1980)
Proximate Cause
“ Vessel was involved in a collision which is an insured peril & had to be put in port of repairs
Repair took to long, ships cargo eventually lost due to deterioration resulting in claim against cargo Insurers
- PC of loss was held as delay & collision was merely a remote cause”
YORKSHIRE DALES CO V MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT (1942)
Proximate Cause
Determing efficent causation should be determined by using common sense. Causation should be understood as the man in the street would and not as a scientist would.
LORD NAPIER & ETTRICK V HUNTER (1993)
- Subrogation, full recovery not being received
- Insurers to pay up and recover down
- Insured gets monies first
- Last thing to be received is Insureds excess
NFU MUTUAL V HSBC INSURANCE (2010)
- Transfer of ownership of property
- Contract for sale of building were exchanged in 2007, providing that risk now with purchaser
- 7 Days later & prior to completion, building went on fire
- Purchasers paid in full & recovered an indemnity from NFU.
- NFU tried to recover against HSBC however they had an excess clause.
