Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd. v AXA Royale Belge SA [2002] EWCA Civ 209 (20th February, 2002)

Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd. v AXA Royale Belge SA [2002] EWCA Civ 209 (20th February, 2002)

The policy responds to third party claims for property damage caused by JDN's negligent dredging, including claims by ABP as conservator and other affected parties. The relationship of conservator suffices for property damage under the policy. Investigative costs incurred by HWT are recoverable as consequential loss resulting from physical interference with property. Contractual exclusions do not bar tortious liability claims covered by the policy.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 209
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: AXA Royale Belge SA (formerly NV Royale Belge)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Liability, Property Damage, Nuisance, Negligence, Policy Interpretation, Economic Loss
Insurance Law Tort Law Contract Law Third Party Liability Property Damage Nuisance Negligence Policy Interpretation +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd.

Claimant/respondent

AXA Royale Belge SA (formerly NV Royale Belge)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the insurance policy respond to third party claims arising from property damage caused by siltation?
  2. 2 Is ABP entitled to recover costs as conservator for removal of silt under tort law?
  3. 3 Does the policy cover costs incurred by Hampshire Wildlife Trust for investigation of siltation?

Ratio Decidendi

The policy responds to third party claims for property damage caused by JDN's negligent dredging, including claims by ABP as conservator and other affected parties. The relationship of conservator suffices for property damage under the policy. Investigative costs incurred by HWT are recoverable as consequential loss resulting from physical interference with property. Contractual exclusions do not bar tortious liability claims covered by the policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused