Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors

Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors

The policy wording, including the theft extension endorsements, provided cover for theft by employees and business interruption losses arising therefrom, as there was no express exclusion for employee theft. The ordinary meaning of 'theft' applied, and neither market practice nor the factual matrix displaced this construction. The claims for estoppel and rectification failed as there was no common intention to exclude employee theft, nor any outward expression of accord. There was no actionable misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the brokers to the co-insurers.

Parties
Claimant: Ted Baker PLC; Claimant: No Ordinary Designer Label Limited; Defendant: AXA Insurance UK PLC; Defendant: Fusion Insurance Services Limited; Defendant: Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Insurance Claim (commercial Court) / Trial Judgment on Coverage and Related Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants on coverage issues; claims for estoppel, rectification, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure dismissed.
Legal Topics
Policy Construction, Employee Theft Coverage, Business Interruption Insurance, Rectification, Estoppel, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure
Insurance Law Contract Law Policy Construction Employee Theft Coverage Business Interruption Insurance Rectification Estoppel Misrepresentation +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Baker PLC

Claimant

No Ordinary Designer Label Limited

Claimant

AXA Insurance UK PLC

Defendant

Fusion Insurance Services Limited

Defendant

Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Insurance Claim (commercial Court) / Trial Judgment on Coverage and Related Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether direct losses by non-forcible and violent theft by employees are covered under the policy
  2. 2 Whether business interruption losses arising from non-forcible and violent theft by employees are covered under the policy
  3. 3 Whether policy exclusions or endorsements affect coverage for employee theft and business interruption

Ratio Decidendi

The policy wording, including the theft extension endorsements, provided cover for theft by employees and business interruption losses arising therefrom, as there was no express exclusion for employee theft. The ordinary meaning of 'theft' applied, and neither market practice nor the factual matrix displaced this construction. The claims for estoppel and rectification failed as there was no common intention to exclude employee theft, nor any outward expression of accord. There was no actionable misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the brokers to the co-insurers.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants on coverage issues; claims for estoppel, rectification, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties to agree a draft order (including costs) for approval; failing agreement, the court will determine outstanding issues.