fbpx

Court Compels Insurers to Honour Policy Terms

14th December 2016 By

Insurers are often less than happy to pay up gracefully in the event of a claim and legal advice is sometimes necessary to enforce your rights. In one case, lawyers representing the owner of a listed building that was gutted by fire won a Court of Appeal ruling that insurers were obliged to pay more than £2 million towards the cost of reinstatement.

After the fire left the building in a ruinous condition, the insurers sought to avoid paying out on the policy on various grounds, including misrepresentation and non-disclosure. None of their arguments succeeded, however, and a judge ruled that they were contractually obliged to contribute to reinstatement up to the £2,121,800 limit of indemnity.

In challenging that decision, the insurers pointed out that, before the fire, the building was already an unused shell with a market value of only about £75,000. Planning consent had been granted for its conversion into flats, but the housing market in the area had stalled and any development project would be unviable. It was submitted that the value of the property had in fact been increased by the fire.

In ruling on the appeal, however, the Court found that, on a true interpretation of the relevant policy, the owner was entitled to an indemnity in respect of the value of the building, determined by reference to the cost of reinstatement. Payment under the policy would, however, only be triggered if the owner chose to embark on the reinstatement project, which it had been estimated would cost up to £2.5 million. The insurers’ appeal was rejected, save in respect of certain amendments to the declarations granted by the judge.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...