Making the claim cases

Question 1

Contra proferentem – ambiguous term construed against drafter

Answer 1

Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co Ltd (1954)

Question 2

Literal rule – stored and kept cooking oil not breach gasoline warranty

Answer 2

Thompson v Equity Fire Insurance Co. (1910)

Question 3

Noscitur a sociis “ context of words important - seepage of water not “flood” as flood was grouped with storm and tempest which had element of violence

Answer 3

Young v Sun Alliance London Insurance (1977)

Question 4

If parties use ambiguous language it has to be applied by the court but if there are two possible constructions court entitled to prefer construction which is consistent with business common sense

Answer 4

Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank (2011)

Question 5

£40,000 of jewellery in glove box of locked car was “reasonable precautions”

Answer 5

Sofi v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (1993).

Question 6

Proximate cause – chain of events horse fall inevitably leads to pneumonia

Answer 6

Etherington v Lancashire And Yorkshire Accident Insurance Company (1909)

Question 7

Proximate cause – chain of events horse fall inevitably leads to pneumonia

Answer 7

Leyland Shipping v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd (1918)

Question 8

Concurrent causes one uninsured one covered claim covered

Answer 8

J. J. Lloyd (Instruments) Ltd v. Northern Star Insurance Co. Ltd (1987) The Miss Jay Jay (1987)

Question 9

Concurrent causes one insured one excluded claim not covered

Answer 9

Wayne Tank v Employers Liability Corp (1974)

Question 10

Glass breakage by riot following fire not a natural and probable consequence of fire

Answer 10

Marsden v City And County Insurance (1865)

Question 11

Proximate cause remote cause “indirectly” broadens exclusion war indirect cause of train fatality

Answer 11

Coxe v Employers Liability Insurance Corporation (1916)

Question 12

“arise out of” broadens operative clause use of motor vehicle indirect cause of driver causing accident as pedestrian

Answer 12

Dunthorne v Bentley (1996)

Question 13

Unusual for insurers to cover deliberate losses other than suicide on life policy. Claim not paid in this case when suicide illegal and policy silent

Answer 13

Beresford v. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd (1938),

Question 14

Two concurrent causes wear and tear an speed restrictions. Wear and tear excluded so claim not covered whether it was the proximate cause or a concurrent cause

Answer 14

Midland Mainline Ltd and Others v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd (2004)

Question 15

Damage caused by the escape of water from the roof, which had accumulated over a nine-day period when there was very heavy rainfall held to be “flood”.

Answer 15

Rohan Investments Ltd v. Cunningham (1999)

Question 16

Insurers not liable for damages after paying claim 3.5 years late. Now changed by enterprise act 2016 . Insurers can be liable to pay interest on late claim payments

Answer 16

Sprung v. Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd (1999)

Question 17

Earthquake caused an oil stove to overturn. Spilt oil was ignited by the wick and the building caught fire led to fire damage five hundred yards away. Claim not covered as earthquake was excluded and chain of causation unbroken.

Answer 17

Tootal Broadhurst Lee Company v. London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company (1908)