Sobrany v UAB Transtira

Sobrany v UAB Transtira

Where two insurance policies exist with the same insurer covering overlapping periods for credit hire charges, and the insurer has paid out under both, the claimant is entitled to recover the total sum paid (subject to policy limits), and exclusion clauses do not bar recovery where both policies are with the same insurer and no double recovery arises. The trial judge erred in confining recovery to the first hire period only.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Sobrany; Respondent/defendant: UAB Transtira
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Credit Hire Agreements, Subrogation, Double Recovery, Consumer Protection Regulations, Pleadings and Amendments
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Credit Hire Agreements Subrogation Double Recovery Consumer Protection Regulations Pleadings and Amendments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sobrany

Appellant/claimant

UAB Transtira

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to recover the full amount of hire charges under one or more insurance policies
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the defendant to argue the existence of two insurance policies
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Where two insurance policies exist with the same insurer covering overlapping periods for credit hire charges, and the insurer has paid out under both, the claimant is entitled to recover the total sum paid (subject to policy limits), and exclusion clauses do not bar recovery where both policies are with the same insurer and no double recovery arises. The trial judge erred in confining recovery to the first hire period only.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Sobrany in the sum of £101,382.22 plus interest to be agreed by the parties
  • Costs consequences to follow