Sodden v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd [1999] ScotCS 22 (15 January 1999)

Sodden v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd [1999] ScotCS 22 (15 January 1999)

The court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the defenders had established that the fire was started by the pursuer. The evidence excluded accidental causes and made vandalism highly improbable. Only the pursuer and his nephew had keys, and there was no evidence implicating the nephew or supporting any alternative explanation. The Lord Ordinary was justified in concluding that arson by the pursuer was the probable explanation, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 22
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: David Kean Sodden; Defenders and Respondents: The Prudential Assurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Claim / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Insurance Fraud, Arson, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Indemnity, Evidence Assessment
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Insurance Fraud Arson Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Indemnity Evidence Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kean Sodden

Pursuer and Reclaimer

The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance Claim / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer deliberately set fire to the insured premises or connived in arson, thereby invalidating his insurance claim.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders discharged the burden of proving fraud on the balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the defenders had established that the fire was started by the pursuer. The evidence excluded accidental causes and made vandalism highly improbable. Only the pursuer and his nephew had keys, and there was no evidence implicating the nephew or supporting any alternative explanation. The Lord Ordinary was justified in concluding that arson by the pursuer was the probable explanation, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused.
  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.