CP (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Tuckey,Thomas,Hallett L JJ |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2006 |
| Date | 30 March 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal (Civil Division).
Tuckey, Thomas and Hallett L JJ.
Dr D Jess (instructed by Keoghs, Bolton) for the appellant.
P Irvin (instructed by Cooper Sons Hartley and Williams, Buxton) for the respondent.
The following case was referred to in the judgment:
Young and Harston's Contract, Re(1885) 31 ChD 168.
Insurance Wilful act Standard householders contents policy with extensions Householder's children covered for accidental damage to property Policy excluded cover for claims and liabilities arising from any wilful, malicious or criminal acts Child burned down mill Whether wilful connoted intention to cause damage giving rise to claim.
This was an appeal by insurers against the judge's decision on a Pt. 20 claim that damage arising from a wilful act meant damage deliberately caused and consciously intended.
The claimant alleged that it had lost nearly 850,000 worth of stock when a mill, which was partly derelict and partly used for commercial purposes including the claimant's repackaging unit, was burned down.
The fire was started by an 11 year old child who had built a den in the derelict part of the mill and then set fire to paper inside the den but did not think that the mill would burn down. The claimant's insurers claimed against the child's mother's insurers. The mother's policy covered the child for accidental damage to property but excluded claims and liabilities arising from wilful, malicious or criminal acts. The judge held that the insurers could not rely on the exclusion and they appealed arguing that in context wilful simply meant deliberate.
Held, dismissing the insurers' appeal:
1. The use of the words malicious and criminal lent colour to what was meant by a wilful act. In context it was an act which was blameworthy and so something more than a deliberate or intentional act was contemplated. If that was all the word meant, the wide cover apparently provided by the extension would largely be taken away by the exclusion. Most acts, including negligent acts, were deliberate and intentional.
2. For an act to be wilful it would be enough to show that the insured was reckless as to the consequences of his act. If the insured was aware that what he was about to do risked damage of the kind which gave rise to the claim or did not care whether there was such a risk or not, he would act recklessly if he went ahead and did it. Such conduct was intended to be included in the exclusion and a reckless act was a wilful act for that purpose. That approach focused upon the state of the insured's mind when he did the act rather than its intended consequences. Defined in that way the exclusion did not require the insured to intend to cause damage of the kind in question.
3. Having regard to his age and his statement, the child's conduct could not be described as reckless. It could be described as stupid but that was not enough. He was unaware of the risk that his fire might burn down the mill and there was nothing to show that he did not care whether it might have done so or not.
Tuckey LJ:
1. What does the word wilful mean in an insurance policy which excludes cover for claims and liabilities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnett or Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Ltd
...of his submission that “wilful” may include recklessness, Mr McBrearty relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in CP (a child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Co Ltd [2006] 1 CLC 576. That case concerned a fire which had been started by an 11 year old boy who had set fire to paper in a de......
-
Onyeari v Churchil
...deliberate, wilful is capable of having a wider meaning, depending on the context. This was a point made by Tuckey LJ in the CP case [2006] 1 CLC 576, para 13: “The legal dictionaries show that wilful is used in many contexts. One can safely say that it always means deliberate and that it w......
-
Fiona Elsie Burnett Or Grant Against (first) Jonas Marcius Aka Jonas Melnikovas; (second) Prospect Security Limited (in Liq); (third) Blu Inns Limited; And (fourth) International Insurance Company Of Hanover Limited
...insurance. The authorities indicated that what was meant by it was an action which was blameworthy (CP v Royal London Mutual Insurance [2006] 1 CLC 576, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 85 sub nom Ronson International Ltd v Patrick), actions amounting to “deliberate and conscious neglect or default or......
-
Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Ltd
...v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd sub nom Ronson International Ltd v Patrick [2006] EWCA Civ 421; [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 344; [2006] 1 CLC 576; [2007] Lloyd's Rep IR 85 Charlton v Fisher [2001] EWCA Civ 112; [2002] QB 578; [2001] 3 WLR 1435; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 769; [2001] RTR ......