P (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
For an act to be 'wilful' under the policy exclusion, it is sufficient if the insured was reckless as to the consequences, but not necessary to prove intention to cause the specific damage. The child's conduct was not reckless, so the exclusion did not apply.
- Parties
- Part 20 Claimant/respondent: C P (A Child); Defendant/appellant: Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 30 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Insurance Policy Exclusions, Meaning of 'wilful' in Insurance Context, Recklessness and Liability Exclusion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
C P (A Child)
Part 20 Claimant/respondent
Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench)
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the meaning of 'wilful' in the context of an insurance policy exclusion for 'wilful, malicious or criminal acts'?
- 2 Does the exclusion apply to damage caused by a child who did not intend or foresee the extent of the damage?
Ratio Decidendi
For an act to be 'wilful' under the policy exclusion, it is sufficient if the insured was reckless as to the consequences, but not necessary to prove intention to cause the specific damage. The child's conduct was not reckless, so the exclusion did not apply.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No change to underlying judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment