Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc

Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc

Provident was entitled to avoid the policy for non-disclosure as the speeding conviction, combined with the classification of the prior accident as 'fault', would have led to an increased premium, and the non-disclosure induced Provident to renew on more favourable terms. Provident's avoidance was effective upon communication and was not waived or reversed by subsequent conduct. Drake, having paid more than its rateable proportion, acted as a volunteer and could not recover a contribution from Provident. The rateable proportion clause applied according to its terms, and the equitable right to contribution did not arise.

Parties
Claimant: Drake Insurance Plc; Defendant: Provident Insurance Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Policy Avoidance, Double Insurance, Contribution Between Insurers, Waiver, Good Faith
Insurance Law Contract Law Equity Non Disclosure Policy Avoidance Double Insurance Contribution Between Insurers Waiver +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drake Insurance Plc

Claimant

Provident Insurance Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Provident was entitled to avoid the policy for non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether Drake could recover a contribution from Provident in equity
  3. 3 Whether Drake acted as a volunteer in settling the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Provident was entitled to avoid the policy for non-disclosure as the speeding conviction, combined with the classification of the prior accident as 'fault', would have led to an increased premium, and the non-disclosure induced Provident to renew on more favourable terms. Provident's avoidance was effective upon communication and was not waived or reversed by subsequent conduct. Drake, having paid more than its rateable proportion, acted as a volunteer and could not recover a contribution from Provident. The rateable proportion clause applied according to its terms, and the equitable right to contribution did not arise.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Drake's claim for contribution is dismissed.