Scribd
Upload
782 views2 pages

Simmonds v. Cockell

The plaintiff's premises were broken into and goods worth £475 were stolen while the plaintiff and his wife were away. The insurance policy contained a clause stating "Warranted that the premises are always occupied." The plaintiff sued the insurer under the policy. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the warranty had not been broken as the policy did not stipulate for continuous presence, only that the premises be occupied. The court reasoned that ambiguous clauses in insurance policies drafted by the insurer must be interpreted against the insurer.

Uploaded by

ATHENAS
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
782 views2 pages

Simmonds v. Cockell

The plaintiff's premises were broken into and goods worth £475 were stolen while the plaintiff and his wife were away. The insurance policy contained a clause stating "Warranted that the premises are always occupied." The plaintiff sued the insurer under the policy. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the warranty had not been broken as the policy did not stipulate for continuous presence, only that the premises be occupied. The court reasoned that ambiguous clauses in insurance policies drafted by the insurer must be interpreted against the insurer.

Uploaded by

ATHENAS
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/ 2

Sakshi, Banaras Hindu University.

Simmonds v. Cockell

Equivalent citations: [1920] 1 KB 843, (1920) All ER Rep. 162

England and Wales


Bench: Justice Joche.

PETITIONER

SIMMONDS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT

COCKELL

FACTS OF THE CASE.


The plaintiff’s premises were broken into and Euros 475 worth of goods were
stolen. The plaintiff and his wife were not on the premises on the day of the
theft. The insurance policy contains the clause-: “Warranted that the premises
are always occupied.” The plaintiff sued one of the underwriting members of
Lloyd‟s under a Lloyd’s policy of insurance against burglary, housebreaking
and theft

ISSUES OF THE CASE


Whether the warranty has been broken by the plaintiff?

HOLDING
The judgement was held in the favour of the plaintiff with costs. The defendant has not
stipulated for the continuous presence of someone in the premises, which he could have done
by providing that the premises were never to be left unattended.

RATIONALE
It is a well-known principle of insurance law and other matters, that if the language of a clause drawn
by a party himself for his own protection is ambiguous it must be construed against him, and if the
words of a warranty in a policy are ambiguous, they must be construed against the underwriter who
has inserted the warranty in it for his own protection.

You might also like