Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Case Laws Related To Fire Insurance

1. Fire insurance policies require utmost good faith from both parties. Any misrepresentation of material facts by the insured allows the insurer to reject a claim. 2. Loss from fire must be direct; loss from other causes like rainwater are not covered. 3. Shifting the insured location without informing the insurer violates the contract terms, so claims are not payable. Location is material to the insurance terms and conditions.

Uploaded by

AnanDu Kr'shna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Case Laws Related To Fire Insurance

1. Fire insurance policies require utmost good faith from both parties. Any misrepresentation of material facts by the insured allows the insurer to reject a claim. 2. Loss from fire must be direct; loss from other causes like rainwater are not covered. 3. Shifting the insured location without informing the insurer violates the contract terms, so claims are not payable. Location is material to the insurance terms and conditions.

Uploaded by

AnanDu Kr'shna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1.

Alkesh Saini v SBI General Insurance Company Ltd 2014: Fire


insurance is a contract of utmost good faith, and therefore party is duty
bound to disclose each and every material facts, and if there is a
misrepresentation than the company do have a right to reject due to
misrepresentation.

2.  Mr. Jagdish Lal Sharma Vs The National Insurance Company


Ltd. 2016 : Fire insurance covers the loss which is directly related to the
outbreak of fire any loss which is outside the purview of direct loss will not
be covered. In this case the claim was rejected on the ground that there was
direct of the rain water which destroyed the goods, since there was presence
of rain water which is a natural thing and . outside the purview of insurance.
If it would have been the presence of water due to bursting of a pipeline than
the situation would have been a different and it might would have been
covered under the insurance.

3.  Shri. M. S. A. Kajalwala Vs Oriental Insurance Company 2014 : if the


location has been shifeted from one place to other than it is the duty of the
insured party that they must need to disclose this to the insurance company
since the t&c of the contracts are based in accordance with the location itself
and if it is changed than it simply means that the prime essence of contract
has been vititated. Therefore claim is not payable if location has been
shifted.

4. Mr. Amar P. Saxena – Vs – The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd : if


a claim has been raised by the claimant in accordance with day zero cost i.e.
initial cost of the product than the company is not bound to pay the initial
cost of the product. The company will be paying the cost of the damaged
product after deducting the depreciated cost, which simply means the
company will be paying only the current standing cost.

5. Mr. T. Sasidharan nair Vs The United India Insurance Ltd 2016: it was
held in this case that while giving the claim the reasonable nexus need to be
adjudged and even if the claim is indirect one but if it falls under the
reasonable nexus than the claim must be settled down.

You might also like