Luss Estates Company v G B Garman & Co & Anor [1999] ScotCS 268 (12 November 1999)

Luss Estates Company v G B Garman & Co & Anor [1999] ScotCS 268 (12 November 1999)

The court held that the second defenders had not demonstrated that the pursuers' case was bound to fail even if their averments were proved. The materiality of the alleged misrepresentation and the scope of the second defenders' duty could only be determined after hearing evidence. Therefore, the action against the second defenders should not be dismissed at this stage, and proof before answer was appropriate.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 268
Parties
Pursuer: Luss Estates Company; First Defender: G. B. Garman & Co.; Second Defender: Hutchison & Craft Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (proof Before Answer Allowed, Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Duty of Care of Insurance Brokers, Repudiation of Insurance Policy, Professional Standards
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Misrepresentation Duty of Care of Insurance Brokers Repudiation of Insurance Policy Professional Standards

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luss Estates Company

Pursuer

G. B. Garman & Co.

First Defender

Hutchison & Craft Ltd.

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (proof Before Answer Allowed, Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defenders (insurance brokers) owed a duty of care to the pursuers regarding the accuracy of claims history information supplied to insurers.
  2. 2 Whether the second defenders' misrepresentation was material and causative of the pursuers' loss.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers' pleadings disclosed a relevant case against the second defenders warranting proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the second defenders had not demonstrated that the pursuers' case was bound to fail even if their averments were proved. The materiality of the alleged misrepresentation and the scope of the second defenders' duty could only be determined after hearing evidence. Therefore, the action against the second defenders should not be dismissed at this stage, and proof before answer was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed; all pleas standing except the first plea in law for the pursuers which was not insisted upon.