Insurance: Damage To Property And 50/50 Clauses

A recent case has confirmed that 50/50 clauses in policies covering the same risk, will be applicable if:

there is such uncertainty that it is not possible to reach any conclusion as to when the relevant damage occurred; or one theory as to causation of the loss is so improbable that even if the other theory is ruled out, it cannot as a matter of common sense be described as more likely than not. In European Group Limited & Others v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 1245 (QB), the developer of a new waste recycling plant and its contractors were insured for damage to plant and materials under two insurance policies. The first policy was provided by the Claimant, and covered damage to plant and materials on site. The second policy was provided by the Defendant, and covered damage to plant and materials while they were in transit. The new recycling facility required the installation of economizer blocks containing lengths of tubes. These were manufactured in Romania and delivered by road and sea to the site. After the units had been on site for 4 to 6 months, cracking was discovered in the tubes. The parties agreed that the cracking was caused by fatigue stress. However, the Claimant argued that the fatigue stress and cracking was caused by the condition of the roads during transit; while the Defendant argued that it was caused by wind exposure suffered on site. Both polices contained 50/50 clauses, providing that if it was not possible to ascertain whether the cause of damage occurred before or after arrival at the site, the insurers would each contribute 50% of the properly adjusted claim. The Judge concluded that it was not a realistic possibility that the fatigue stress and cracking was caused by wind exposure. However, although he found the wind theory improbable, that did not automatically mean that the road vibration theory was the probable cause. The balance of probabilities test had to be applied to the road vibration theory, to properly determine whether it was more likely than not to have caused the damage. If it was not possible to conclude that this alternative theory...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT