Irish Nationwide Building Society v. Malone [1998] IESC 58 (10th December, 1998)

Irish Nationwide Building Society v. Malone [1998] IESC 58 (10th December, 1998)

The Building Society, having acted as insurance agent for the Malones for valuable consideration, owed a continuing duty of care to diligently arrange the mortgage protection assurance. The Society breached this duty by failing to forward the application promptly and by not following up with the insurer. The documents signed by the Malones did not relieve the Society of this duty. There was no contributory negligence by the Malones. The High Court's findings were supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed.

Citation
[1998] IESC 58
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Irish Nationwide Building Society; Respondent/plaintiff: Eileen Malone
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Agency, Negligence, Mortgage Protection Assurance, Contributory Negligence
Contract Law Insurance Law Tort Law Duty of Care Agency Negligence Mortgage Protection Assurance Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Nationwide Building Society

Appellant/defendant

Eileen Malone

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Building Society owed a continuing duty of care as insurance agent to the Malones after loan drawdown
  2. 2 Whether the Building Society was negligent in arranging mortgage protection assurance
  3. 3 Whether the Malones were guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Building Society, having acted as insurance agent for the Malones for valuable consideration, owed a continuing duty of care to diligently arrange the mortgage protection assurance. The Society breached this duty by failing to forward the application promptly and by not following up with the insurer. The documents signed by the Malones did not relieve the Society of this duty. There was no contributory negligence by the Malones. The High Court's findings were supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Building Society's claim for possession refused
  • Respondent's claim for relief from liability on the loan granted