Wilkie (AP) v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2001] ScotCS 220 (19 September 2001)

Wilkie (AP) v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2001] ScotCS 220 (19 September 2001)

The continuing payment by the defenders for the pursuer's alternative accommodation up to 28 May 1993, viewed in the context of the whole dealings after the fire, constituted performance towards implement of the obligation to indemnify under the policy, and thus amounted to relevant acknowledgement under section 10(1)(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Accordingly, the obligation had not prescribed.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 220
Parties
Pursuer: Stuart Jeremy Peter Wilkie (AP); Defenders: Direct Line Insurance Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Claim / Preliminary Proof on Prescription
Outcome
Defenders' first plea-in-law on prescription repelled in both actions.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Material Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Indemnity Under Insurance Policy
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Prescription and Limitation Material Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Indemnity Under Insurance Policy

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 (AP)

Pursuer

Direct Line Insurance Plc

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance Claim / Preliminary Proof on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' obligation to indemnify the pursuer under the insurance policy had prescribed under section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether payments made by the defenders after 22 May 1993 constituted relevant acknowledgement of the obligation under section 10(1)(a) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The continuing payment by the defenders for the pursuer's alternative accommodation up to 28 May 1993, viewed in the context of the whole dealings after the fire, constituted performance towards implement of the obligation to indemnify under the policy, and thus amounted to relevant acknowledgement under section 10(1)(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Accordingly, the obligation had not prescribed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Prescription plea repelled; actions may proceed.