1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
CIGARETTES WERE INSURED, SAYS LORDS
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T AST week the House of Lords ruled that J–d cigarettes worth £56,000 stolen from the London depot of Players Ltd., of Nottingham, on two lorries belonging to A. Tomlinson (Hauliers) Ltd., of Nottingham, were covered by insurance up to the limit of the policy at the time of the theft.
In a reserved judgment the House dismissed with costs an appeal by a representative Lloyd's underwriter from a decision of the Court of Appeal (December 18, 1964) upholding a judgment of Mr. Justice Roskill on April 30, 1964, that he must pay Tomlinson £136 5s. 10d. This was his share of a sum Tomlinson claimed from a Lloyd's syndicate under a "goods in transit" policy. The limit of the amount payable under the policy was £9,026. The underwriter, Mr. Dudley Frankland Hepburn, had contended that the policy covered the liability of Tomlinson to Players only, and that as the cigarettes—a total of 7,000,000—were stolen through Players' own negligence, no compensation was due as Tomlinson had suffered no loss.
For Tomlinson it was contended that the cigarettes were insured until they were unloaded, and that the company was entitled to recover on behalf of Players.
Lord Reid said the case must depend on the true construction of the policy. In his judgment the policy was a policy on goods and the goods were still on risk when stolen. Tomlinson was entitled to recover the value of the goods up to the limit in the policy and account to Players for what the company did not require for its own indemnification.
Lord Hodson, Lord Guest, Lord Pearce and Lord Wilberforce agreed that the appeal be dismissed with costs.