Insurable Interest in UK Law

In our judgment Davy undoubtedly had an insurable interest in the plant under construction and on which they were working because they might lose the opportunity to do the work and to be remunerated for it if the property or structure were damaged or destroyed by any of the "all risks", such as fire or flood.

But equally he can if he chooses insure up to his full insurable interest—up to the full value of the goods entrusted to him. And if he does that he can recover the value of the goods though he has suffered no personal loss at all. But in that case the law will require him to account to the owner of the goods who has suffered the loss or, as Lord Campbell says, he will be trustee for the owners.

I find that Mr. Clegg was told on 12 August 2000 that the Yacht was overweight, that there seemed to be some 607 kilogrammes excess weight in the keel, and that Mr. Andersson and Malo would put that right. Even on Mr. Clegg's evidence he knew on 16 August 2000 that the keel was overweight. With that knowledge he took his family on a cruise to Falmouth and Alderney over eight days or so. In the light of that experience he decided that he liked the Yacht as it was and told Mr. Andersson so.

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.

An essential feature of insurance against fire is that it covers fires caused by accident as well as by negligence. This was what the plaintiffs agreed to provide in consideration of (inter alia) the insurance rent paid by the defendants.

Similarly in other well-known marine insurance cases such a Joyce v. Kennard, [1871] Law Reports 8 Queen's Bench 78 and Cunard SS Co. v. Marten, [1902] 2 King's Bench 6 24, where it was essential to determine whether the insurance was "on" goods or insurance against liability for goods, the wording of the cover and not the nature of the insurable interest was held to be decisive.

It is an independent contract between reinsured and reinsurer in which the subject-matter of the insurance is the same as that of the primary insurance, that is to say, the risk to the ship or goods or whatever might be insured. The difference lies in the nature of the insurable interest, which in the case of the primary insurer, arises from his liability under the original policy: see Buckley L.J. in British Dominions General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Duder [1915] 2 K.B. 394, 400.