Insurance and Reinsurance in UK Law

It has long been accepted that this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause but that the court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality and quality of drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to that objective meaning.

But, in striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clause ( Rainy Sky para 26, citing Mance LJ in Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299 paras 13 and 16); and it must also be alive to the possibility that one side may have agreed to something which with hindsight did not serve his interest: Arnold (paras 20 and 77).

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.

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. In the case of a Company, he must get the leave of the Court. The Insurance Company can fight that action in the name of the wrongdoer. In that way liability can be established and the loss ascertained.

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.