Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Teisheira et Al

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Berridge, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1968
• Neutral Citation: MS 1968 HC 2
• Docket Number: 12 of 1967
• Date: 12 November 1968

Excess Insurance Co. Ltd.

and

Teisheira et al

Berridge, J.

12 of 1967

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. High Court

Insurance - Motor insurance — Double payment received by claimant — Circumstances.

Held: Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Facts: The first defendant's motor car collided with the second defendant's motor car and liability was admitted by the second defendant. The first defendant had an insurance policy in the sum of $3000.00 with the plaintiff insurance at the time of the accident. The first defendant received the sum of $710 from the second defendant being settlement of his claim in connection with the accident to the first defendant's car. The plaintiff company claimed from the first defendant the sum of $2725.00 which was subsequently paid him, being unaware at the time of so doing that he had received the smaller sum.

1 The plaintiff is a company carrying on business of insurance of motor cars with whom the car of the first named defendant was insured on the 6 ^th January, 1966 in the sum of $3,000.00 when his car M455 came into collision with car M294 driven by the servant or agent of the late M. S. Osborne. The car of the first defendant became a total loss.

2 The accident was in due course reported to the Manager of the insurance company who informed the first named defendant that he would have independently to recover any amount in respect of loss of use in that the policy did not cover him in that respect.

3 After ascertaining that it would take about 71 days to have a car delivered to him the first named defendant negotiated or and received from the late M. S. Osborne, on 25 ^th January, 1966, the sum of $710 ($600 by cheque and $110 in cash) being settlement of his claim in connection with the accident to car M 455 and it is in this setting that the plaintiff company claims from the first named defendant the sum of $2,725.00 which they subsequently paid him being unaware at the time of so doing that he had deceived the smaller sum.

4 By order dated the 5 ^th July, 1968 leave was granted the plaintiff to amend the writ of summons and statement of claim by adding Bertrand Osborne, the representative of M.S. Osborne, deceased, as a defendant.

5 At this stage I should state that I am satisfied from an inspection of the policy of insurance, (Ex G), that the plaintiff company was in no way liable to the first named defendant for loss of use of the damaged car and that...