References: [1938] AC 586, [1938] 2 All ER 602
Coram: Lord Atkin
Ratio: The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may suggest otherwise, and his personal representative is in no better position: ‘On ordinary principles of insurance law an assured cannot by his own deliberate act cause the event upon which the insurance money is payable. The insurers have not agreed to pay on that happening. The fire assured cannot recover if he intentionally burns down his house, nor a marine assured if he scuttles his ship, nor the life assured if he deliberately ends his own life. This is not the result of public policy, but of the correct construction of the contract.’ and ‘But apart from these considerations the absolute rule is that the courts will not recognise a benefit accruing to a criminal from his crime.’ As to the position of a personal representative: ‘I cannot think the principle of public policy to be so narrow as not to include the increase of the criminal’s estate amongst the benefits which he is deprived of by his crime. His executor or administrator claims as his representative, and, as his representative, falls under the same ban.’ The ban would not affect an assignee for value before the event apparently giving rise to liability under the policy.
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd CA ([1937] 2 KB 197)
Major Beresford had shot himself. The court considered the applicability of the forfeiture rule in a case involving a suicide: ‘suicide when sane is by English law a felony. This has been so from very early times. The law is thus succinctly stated . . - Cited – Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association CA ([1892] 1 QB 147)
The deceased’s executors, objected to his widow maintaining action on a trust created by an insurance policy in her favour under the Act. She had been convicted of his murder. The executors’ case was that ‘it is against public policy to allow a . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2167, [1997] 4 All ER 289, [1998] Ch 412, [1997] 3 WLR 1261, [1998] 1 FLR 157, [1998] Fam Law 139, [1997] 3 FCR 669)
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . . - Cited – Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1491, Times 17-Nov-04, [2005] 1 WLR 1226)
The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social . . - Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA ([1964] 2 QB 745, [1964] 2 All ER 742)
The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . . - Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL (Times 16-Jul-99, Gazette 11-Aug-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 3 WLR 363, [1999] UKHL 35, [2000] 1 AC 360, [1999] 3 All ER 897)
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . . - Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1454, Times 08-Nov-06)
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . . - Cited – Porter v Zurich Insurance Company QBD ([2009] NPC 38, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 658, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 376 (QB))
The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover . . - Cited – Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1657 (QB))
The driver had crashed into the insured’s building causing substantial damage. The court was asked which of the driver’s and building’s insurers should bear the costs. The driver’s insurers said that he had acted deliberately and therefore they were . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21 February 2017
Ref: 199533
The post Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd: HL 1938 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.