Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Limitations as to use

  • 30 Sept 1992

    YOUNG CONQUEROR CO LTD v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO PLC AND OTHERS

    Citation
    YOUNG CONQUEROR CO LTD v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO PLC AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8217/1987

    Clauses 5 and 6 were incorporated as definitional provisions rather than independent warranties so damage was prima facie covered; any ambiguity in General Exception 1(b)(i) must be construed contra proferentem giving it a purposive meaning (insured must have ordered/permitted/known misuse) and insurers failed to prove an exception; the restaurant was vicariously liable because the parking attendant was acting in course of employment and the restaurant did not prove any exemption clause — accordingly insurers liable to indemnify and 2nd Defendant liable to plaintiff for full repair costs.

  • 26 Nov 1986

    TAM HING WAH AND ANOTHER v. MO CHOI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TAM HING WAH AND ANOTHER v. MO CHOI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7270/1985

    The court found that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the first defendant in the course of his employment for the restaurant for the benefit of the restaurants business; although the first defendant was an authorised driver, that use fell outside the policys permitted "Limitations as to Use" (and alternatively would be a disqualifying dual use), therefore the insurer (Pacific) was not liable and the defendants claim for indemnity was dismissed. The defendants were not estopped from raising the agency/employment defence.