Kiriacoulis Lines SA v Compagnie D'assurances Maritime Aeriennes Et Terrestres (Camat) & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1070 (16th July 2002)

Kiriacoulis Lines SA v Compagnie D'assurances Maritime Aeriennes Et Terrestres (Camat) & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1070 (16th July 2002)

The insurers failed to prove convincingly that there was an antecedent oral agreement to exclude liability for loss or damage caused by vandalism, sabotage, or malicious mischief. The evidence showed only that the parties agreed to delete the 3 October addendum, not to add a new exclusion. Therefore, rectification of the policy was not justified.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1070
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Kiriacoulis Lines SA; Appellant/defendant: Compagnie d’Assurances Maritime Aeriennes et Terrestres (CAMAT); Appellant/defendant: QBE International Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Judgment (commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Marine Insurance, Interpretation of Insurance Policy, Concurrent Causes and Exclusions, Burden of Proof for Rectification
Insurance Law Contract Law Maritime Law Rectification of Contract Marine Insurance Interpretation of Insurance Policy Concurrent Causes and Exclusions Burden of Proof for Rectification

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiriacoulis Lines SA

Respondent/claimant

Compagnie d’Assurances Maritime Aeriennes et Terrestres (CAMAT)

Appellant/defendant

QBE International Insurance Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Judgment (commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marine insurance policy should be rectified to exclude liability for loss or damage caused by vandalism, sabotage, or malicious mischief based on an alleged antecedent oral agreement between the parties' representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

The insurers failed to prove convincingly that there was an antecedent oral agreement to exclude liability for loss or damage caused by vandalism, sabotage, or malicious mischief. The evidence showed only that the parties agreed to delete the 3 October addendum, not to add a new exclusion. Therefore, rectification of the policy was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay respondent’s costs of the appeal summarily assessed in the sum of £34,379