ST. MARGARET'S TRUST, LTD. v. NAVIGATORS & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
(1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep. 752
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
Before Mr. Justice Morris.
Marine insurance - Non-disclosure- Misrepresentation - Proposal form- Further information volunteered by insurance agent-Capacity of agent- Actual or constructive total loss- Refloating-Measure of loss-Proof- Purchase of auxiliary ketch Vishela by H. Co. (dealers in yachts, etc.)-H. Co. also acting as agents of N. & G. Insurance Company-Insurance of ketch placed by H. Co. with N. & G., who held her covered while lying at (inter alia) deep water moorings- Evidence that she lay at such moorings for four or five weeks without making any appreciable amount of water- Ketch purchased by G. (through plaintiffs, a hire purchase finance company) from H. Co.-Intention by G. to lay up ketch on mud berth and himself to effect refitting repairs to enable him to live on board-Evidence that under-water condition of ketch was satisfactory, but that her topsides caulking was inefficient-Insurance of ketch by G.-Proposal form for insurance with N. & G. supplied by H. Co. and filled up by G.-Completed proposal form sent by H. Co. to N. & G., with covering letter written by H. Co. stating that "this craft is quite sound, but needs a considerable amount of fitting out"-Policy issued by N. & G. covering ketch (warranted laid up) against "all loss of or damage to the insured vessel, and machinery . . . directly caused by external accidental means. . ." and also providing for recovery:
(A) In the case of an actual or constructive total loss the agreed value [£660] of the insured property, or
(B) In the case of a partial loss, the reasonable cost of repairing or reinstating the damaged or lost part of the insured property and necessary expenses connected therewith.
Sue and labour clause providing:
In the case of misfortune to the insured vessel it shall be lawful to the assured . . . to sue labour and travel for in and about the protection safeguard or repair of the insured vessel, without prejudice to this insurance and all charges thereof including salvage charges the cost of towing or removing the vessel to a place of safety so necessarily incurred shall form part of the claim . . .
Ketch, put on mud berth at Lymington, subsequently shifted across river to another mud berth, where she slipped over at low tide, and filled with water on the flood tide owing to the neglected state of her topside caulking-Ketch left in that position for about a month, when, being so required by the local harbour authority, she was raised at plaintiffs' expense and towed to Pylewell Creek, where she was left until another mud berth became available-No further steps taken, ketch gradually deteriorating and having no more than a break-up value- Later orders given by harbour authority that wreck must be removed or destroyed-Right of plaintiffs to recover as for total loss-Declaration claimed by plaintiffs that N. & G. were liable to indemnify them
(a) In a sum not exceeding £660, the agreed value of the Vishela;
(b) In the sum of £87 17s. paid by plaintiffs for and in connection with the refloating of the Vishela;
(c) In such sums as plaintiffs might become liable to pay in respect of the removal, destruction or disposal of the wreck of the Vishela.
Contention by N. & G. that there was non-disclosure by G., in that he failed to disclose certain "material circumstances" concerning the condition of the topsides, etc., of the ketch; that there was misrepresentation by H. Co. (as agents for G.) in stating that "this craft is quite sound"- Meaning of "quite"-Denial that there was either actual or constructive total loss-Whether statement made by H. Co. was made as agents for G.- Measure of plaintiffs' loss-Evidence of condition of ketch and of loss sustained-"Loss proximately caused by delay"-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 17, 18, 19, 55 (2) (b).