Mallalieu v Excess Insurance Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 April 1971
• Neutral Citation: KN 1971 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 25 of 1970
• Date: 01 April 1971

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 25 of 1970

Mallalieu

and

Excess Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appearances:

M. Davis, Q.C, and D. Byron for plaintiff.

L.F. Henville, Q.C. (Wd. Islands) for defendant 1971

Insurance - Motor Insurance — Terms.

Facts: Whether the defendant insurance company was liable to the plaintiff for damages to his vehicle.

Held: The question involved the construction of the terms of the insurance policy. The damage to the vehicle was caused by flood and it was a term of the contract that the company would not be liable for the damage in those circumstances.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff is a “businessman in the town of Basseterre in the island of St. Christopher, and the defendant is an Insurance Company carrying on business in the State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla by their agents Delisle Walwyn and Company Limited, a registered company whose offices are situated at Liverpool Row, in the town of Basseterre aforesaid. The plaintiff is and was at all material times the owner of a motor vehicle being a 1969 Austin Pick-up bearing registration number P. 881. By a contract of commercial motor vehicle insurance dated the 27th August, 1969 made by the defendant Company in consideration of premiums paid by the plaintiff, the defendant Company insured the plaintiff against loss, damage and liability sustained in connection with the said motor vehicle P, 881 actually occurring during the period 7th August, 1969 to 6th August, 1970.

2 The plaintiff alleged in his Statement of Claim that on or about the 3rd day of May, 1970 the said motor vehicle was damaged beyond repair while it was being driven along Cayon Street, Basseterre, by Irvin Warner, the servant of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was thereby caused loss and damage to the value of $3,650.00, being the insured value of the said vehicle. The Plaintiff claims $3,650.40 from the defendant Company

3 The defendant Company denied that it is liable to pay the plaintiff the sum claimed or any other sum. It was alleged in the Statement of Defence that the Plaintiff's said vehicle was damaged during or in consequence of flood and that it “was a term and or condition of the said policy that the defendant should not be liable to pay for the loss or damage arising during (unless it be proved by the insured that the loss or damage was not occasioned thereby) or in consequence of earthquake flood hurricane or volcanic eruption or civil commotion.”

4 The facts which gave rise to this action are briefly as follows: On the night of Saturday 2nd May, Irving Warner, a refrigeration mechanic then in the employ of the plaintiff was driving the plaintiff's Austin Pick-up No....