9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of exclusion clause in an insurance policy regarding theft of jewellery. - Determination of whether the loss was covered by the insurance policy. - Application of the term "entrustment" in the context of insurance coverage. - Examination of legal definitions of theft and breach of trust in relation to the case. Summary: The appellant insurer challenged a judgment regarding a theft claim under a Jeweller Block Policy. The dispute centered on the exclusion clause in the policy, which the insurer argued precluded coverage for the loss. The State Consumers Protection Commission initially ruled against the claim, citing the exclusion clause. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing the lack of entrustment in the theft incident. The court analyzed the meaning of "entrust" and the legal distinctions between theft and breach of trust. It was concluded that the exclusion clause did not apply in this case, as the customer who stole the jewellery was not entrusted with the property. The High Court's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
|
