Insurance and Reinsurance in UK Law

This is, however, an occasion when a first impression and a simple answer no longer seem the best, for I recognise now that the focus of the argument is too narrow. The words must be set in the landscape of the instrument as a whole.

This result can undoubtedly be changed by express provision, but clear words would be required; and it would to my mind be strange if a term changing so fundamentally the financial structure of the relationship were to be buried in a provision such as clause 2, concerned essentially with the measure of indemnity, rather than being given a prominent position on its own.

The fact that a particular construction leads to a very unreasonable result must be a relevant consideration. The more unreasonable the result the more unlikely it is that the parties can have intended it, and if they do intend it the more necessary it is that they shall make that intention abundantly clear.

He should recover from the tortfeasor no more and no less than he has lost. The two well-established categories of receipt which are to be ignored in assessing damages are the fruits of insurance which the plaintiff himself has provided against the contingency causing his injuries (which may or may not lead to a claim by the insurer as subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff) and the fruits of the benevolence of third parties motivated by sympathy for the plaintiff's misfortune.

In these circumstances I think the right to sue for these moneys does not arise until the liability is established and the amount ascertained. If there is an unascertained claim for damages in tort, it cannot be proved in the bankruptcy: nor in the liquidation of the Company. The Insurance Company can fight that action in the name of the wrongdoer. In that way liability can be established and the loss ascertained. Then the injured person can go against the Insurance Company.

It is quiteunheard of in practice for any assured to sue his insurers in a money claim when the actual loss against which he wishes to be indemnified has not been ascertained, I have never heard of such an action and there is nothing in law that makes such an action possible.

It may well be that, when two persons are jointly insured and their interests are inseparably connected so that a loss or gain necessarily affects them both, the misconduct of one is sufficient to contaminate the whole insurance ( Phillips on Marine Insurance, vol.