Insurance and Reinsurance in UK Law

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.

Under the section it is clear to me that the injured person cannot sue the Insurance Company except in such circumstances as the insured himself could have sued the Insurance Company. The insured could only have sued for an indemnity when his liability to the third person was established and the amount of the loss ascertained. In some circumstances the insured might sue earlier for a declaration, e.g. if the insured company were repudiating the policy for some reason.

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.

Stated in that way, I should have thought the question admits of only one answer. Obviously Potters could not have claimed that money from their insurers. 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.

Such a term may be imputed to parties: it is not critically dependent on proof of an actual intention of the parties. This principle is sparingly and cautiously used and may never be employed to imply a term in conflict with the express terms of the text. The legal test for the implication of such a term is a standard of strict necessity.

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.