9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Condition 10 of the insurance policy. 2. Validity of the cancellation of the policy. 3. Determination of whether the cover notes were part of the letters of acceptance. 4. Commencement of risk and inevitability of loss. Analysis: 1. Applicability of Condition 10 of the Insurance Policy: The primary issue was whether Condition 10, which allows either party to terminate the policy at any time, applied to the insurance contract. The court held that the terms and conditions of the policy were incorporated into the contract through the cover notes. The letters of acceptance mentioned the cover notes, which in turn referenced the policy. The court emphasized that in commercial practice, cover notes often incorporate the terms of the future policy, and this was the case here. Therefore, Condition 10 was applicable to the insurance contract. 2. Validity of the Cancellation of the Policy: The court examined whether the cancellation of the policy on July 6, 1950, was valid. It was argued that Condition 10 was unreasonable and could not be invoked once the risk had commenced or become inevitable. The court referred to precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Sun Fire Office v. Hart and the Supreme Court's decision in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. case, which upheld the validity of such conditions. The court concluded that the cancellation was legitimate, as it was done before the risk had commenced or become inevitable. 3. Determination of Whether the Cover Notes Were Part of the Letters of Acceptance: There was a dispute over whether the cover notes were enclosed with the letters of acceptance. The single judge implied they were, while the Divisional Bench held they were not. The Supreme Court found this issue to be of undue prominence. It ruled that even if the cover notes were sent later, the terms and conditions of the policy still governed the relationship between the parties. The court emphasized that the letters of acceptance and cover notes must be read together, and the terms of the policy were applicable. 4. Commencement of Risk and Inevitability of Loss: The court analyzed whether the risk had commenced or become inevitable by the time of cancellation. Evidence showed that the river began to rise in the third week of June, but erosion started by the end of June. Even on July 15, the insured houses were 250 feet away from the river. The court concluded that the cancellation on July 6 was done before the loss had commenced or become inevitable. Thus, the insurance company was within its rights to cancel the policy under Condition 10. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Divisional Bench's decree and restoring the judgment of the learned single judge, which dismissed the suit. The court held that Condition 10 was applicable and the cancellation of the policy was valid. The terms and conditions of the policy governed the relationship between the parties, and the cancellation was done before the risk had commenced or become inevitable. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
|
