Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Transit Insurance Notes

28th January 1938
Page 5
Page 5, 28th January 1938 — Transit Insurance Notes
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?

CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS "rONSEQUENTIAL loss" is las a familiar exclusion in goods-in-transit policies, but many hauliers may not realize its exact meaning. It implies that whereas the insurance company will pay for any actual loss of or damage to goods it will not pay for other losses resulting from such misfortune.

For example, a vehicle conveying cattle to a sale may have an accident which prevents the cattle being delivered in time for the sale. In this case, the owner could recover for the actual injury sustained by the beasts at the time of die collision, but not for the loss which he may have suffered on the uninjured beasts through not reaching the sale in time to dispose of them.

Again, a load of, say, tiled fireplaces may he smashed by reason of the vehicle skidding and overturning and the debris may be scattered across the roadway. A policy would result in payment being made for the breakage of the fireplaces but not for the cleaning up and disposal of the debris, which is a charge entirely " consequential" to the main event.

A line must be drawn, however, between "consequential losses " and "salvage services." If, in the case of the broken fireplaces, a sorting of the debris would help to reduce the final loss by reason of the unbroken riles that might be discovered, then its cost would be borne by the insurance company. For the same reason insurance companies are generally quite agreeable to paying fire-brigade charges, for, • although such expense is purely "consequential," it is undertaken in the best interests of the insurance company C411cernect.


comments powered by Disqus