STUART WILKIE (AP) v. DIRECT LINE INSURANCE PLC [2001] ScotHC 103 (19th September, 2001)

STUART WILKIE (AP) v. DIRECT LINE INSURANCE PLC [2001] ScotHC 103 (19th September, 2001)

Payments made by the defenders for alternative accommodation up to 28 May 1993, viewed in the context of the ongoing claim and without express reservation, constituted performance towards implement of the obligation to indemnify under the policy, thereby relevantly acknowledging the subsistence of the obligation and preventing prescription.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 103
Parties
Pursuer: Stuart Jeremy Peter Wilkie; Defender: Direct Line Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Claim / Preliminary Proof on Prescription
Outcome
Defenders' first plea-in-law on prescription repelled in both actions.
Legal Topics
Prescription, Material Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Indemnity, Policy Avoidance
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Prescription Material Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Indemnity Policy Avoidance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Jeremy Peter Wilkie

Pursuer

Direct Line Insurance PLC

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance Claim / Preliminary Proof on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the obligation to indemnify under the insurance policy had prescribed
  2. 2 Whether performance by the defenders constituted relevant acknowledgement under section 10(1)(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Whether payments for alternative accommodation amounted to performance towards implement of the obligation

Ratio Decidendi

Payments made by the defenders for alternative accommodation up to 28 May 1993, viewed in the context of the ongoing claim and without express reservation, constituted performance towards implement of the obligation to indemnify under the policy, thereby relevantly acknowledging the subsistence of the obligation and preventing prescription.

Court Disposition

Defenders' first plea-in-law on prescription repelled in both actions.

Orders

  • Prescription plea repelled; actions may proceed.