P (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 What is the meaning of 'wilful' in the context of an insurance policy exclusion for 'wilful, malicious or criminal acts'?
  2. 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