ARIF v EXCESS INSURANCE GROUP Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1986 |
| Date | 18 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 35. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Sutherland.
Agency—Insurable interest—Pursuer in partnership with brother but no indication of this on policy of insurance—Whether pursuer having insurable interest.
Evidence—Presumptions—Agency—Insurance proposal form prepared by bank's insurance services department—Whether bank agent for insured or insurer—Whether presumption that bank acted as agent for insured rebutted.
Insurance—Partnership—No indication of partnership in policy of insurance—Whether partner had insurable interest—Whether policy void—Life Assurance Act 1774 (14 Geo. III, cap. 48), sec. 2.1
The pursuer took out a policy of insurance covering, inter alia, fire risks in respect of a partnership hotel business. The proposal form was prepared by a bank's insurance services department and submitted to the pursuer through the manager of a local branch of the bank for signature. In the policy the insured was stated to be the pursuer trading as the hotel. No mention of the partnership was made. A fire broke out and the hotel was destroyed. The pursuer thereafter sought to recover monies on the insurance policy in respect of his loss. In an action raised by him against the insurers, in which the bank were called as third parties, the pursuer contended, inter alia, (a) that, notwithstanding the terms of the policy as regards the description of the insured, the bank were aware that the pursuer acted quaagent of the partnership in taking out the policy which knowledge should be imputed to the insurers thereby personally barring the insurers from contesting the claim made under the policy; and (b) that, the bank had been acting qua agent of the insurers in the matter and accordingly the presumption that the bank had acted qua agent of the insured had been displaced.
Held, (1) that, the bank had not acted in arranging the insurance in any capacity other than as agents for the pursuer; (2) that, accordingly, the information which they might have had could not be imputed to the insurers; and action dismissed.
Opinion, that, in any event, had the insurers known of the existence of the partnership the pursuer had had no insurable interest as an individual.
Opinion further, that, the insured mentioned in the policy could not mean anything other than the pursuer as an individual trading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anson v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...see MacLennan v Scottish Gas Board, First Division, 16 December 1983 (unreported on this point); Arif v Excess Insurance Group Ltd 1987 SLT 473; Mitchell v Scottish Eagle Insurance Ltd 1997 SLT 793. What the partners do own is a share of the partnership. That share is an incorporeal moveabl......
- Hussain and Others v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
-
Stewart v Commercial Union Assurance Company Plc
...to the insurers. In answer counsel for the defenders submitted, under reference to the cases of Arif v. Excess Insurance Group Ltd.SC1986 S.C. 317 and Life & Health Assurance Association Ltd. v. YuleUNK (1904) 6 F. 437, that the usual rule was that a broker was not agent for the insurers bu......
-
Unicom Insurance Services Ltd
...supplied intermediary services, it did so as agent of the consumers and not as agent of TWIC.[57] Arif v Excess Insurance Group Ltd [1987] SLT 473 is authority for the proposition that prima facie, an independent agent or broker is the agent of the insured and not of the insurer. However, W......