AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

In-transit Insurance Appeal Dismissed

25th December 1964
Page 14
Page 14, 25th December 1964 — In-transit Insurance Appeal Dismissed
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed with costs an appeal by a Lloyd's underwriter which concerned insurance cover for the theft of 7,000,000 cigarettes. The cigarettes were in transit from Players' factory in Nottingham and were at their London depot when stolen, two lorries being driven away from the depot on May 24, 1961.

The underwriter, Mr. D. F. Hepburn, appealed from Mr. Justice Roskill's judgment on April 29 in favour of A. Tomlinson (Hauliers) Ltd., Ilkeston Road, Nottingham. The company had claimed against Mr. Hepburn for £136, his share of the sum payable under an insurance policy covering the cigarettes_ Mr. Hepburn denied liability.

Lord Justice Sellers said that at the time of the loss the goods were still on the lorry, not completely uncovered of their tarpaulins, and were to be unloaded early next morning. The policy cover commenced when loading started and continued until the goods were unloaded.

Tomlinson, by reason of their agreement with Players, had to protect Players' interest on the basis of " all risks of loss or damage however arising" up to a specified maximum.

Players' aim was to effect economy in premiums and in haulage charges. There was no doubt that Tomlinson intended to insure and did in fact insure by this policy the proprietary interest in the goods for the benefit of the owners, Players.

The commercial relationships between Tomlinson and Players were close and of long standing. Although the policy did not expressly state the interests insured, it gave on its face indications of a wider cover than the ordinary common law liability of a carrier to consignors. There was the term "all risks—however arising". The extent of Tomlinson's obligations to Players was responsible for these wide terms.

The Lord Justice said he was not satisfied that the risk would have been differently stated or the premium enlarged if the policy had expressed the interest of Players.

Lords Justices Pearson and Russell agreed in dismissing the appeal.

Tags

Organisations: HE Court of Appeal
People: D. F. Hepburn
Locations: Nottingham

comments powered by Disqus