Smyth v St Andrew's Insurance Plc
The insurer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Howe deliberately started the fire. The evidence supports the conclusion that the fire was more likely started accidentally by Ms Alexander, a regular smoker, who carelessly discarded or accidentally dislodged a lit cigarette in her messy bedroom...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Jonathan Smyth; Defendant: St Andrew’s Insurance plc
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Damages Claim / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimant on liability.
- Legal Topics
- Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Policy Exclusions, Accidental Vs Deliberate Causation, Fire Damage Claims
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jonathan Smyth
Claimant
St Andrew’s Insurance plc
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Damages Claim / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the fire was started deliberately by Mr Howe, thus triggering the policy exclusion for vandalism by a family member
- 2 Whether the fire was started accidentally by Ms Alexander, entitling the claimant to indemnity under the policy
Ratio Decidendi
The insurer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Howe deliberately started the fire. The evidence supports the conclusion that the fire was more likely started accidentally by Ms Alexander, a regular smoker, who carelessly discarded or accidentally dislodged a lit cigarette in her messy bedroom while agitated and in a hurry to leave. The policy exclusion for vandalism by a family member does not apply; liability is established.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimant on liability.
Orders
- Insurer liable to indemnify claimant for fire damage under the policy.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment