Gegg v Belize International Insurance Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Malone, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1977 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 40 of 1977 |
| Date | 22 December 1977 |
Supreme Court
Malone, C.J.
Civil Action No. 40 of 1977
Senator S.W. Musa for the plaintiff.
Mr. D.B. Courtenay for the defendant.
Contract - Terms — Implied Term
Contract - Insurance — Uberrimaes fides
Contract - Agency — Notice
Contract - Terms — Intention of parties at time of making of contract
Contract - Offer and Acceptance
Contract - Extrinsic evidence
Insurance - Marine Insurance
Insurance - Marine insurance — Definition of “marine risks”
Insurance - Agency — Marine insurance
Contract - Agreement for the sale of land — Delay in completion on part of both vendor and purchaser — Plaintiff claimed compensation under clause nine of the agreement for an alleged material misdescription — Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for delay in completion — Whether the plaintiff was entitled to tender the whole balance of the purchase price notwithstanding their claim for compensation for the misdescription — Finding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim damages for delay in completion from the defendant since at the date set for completion the plaintiffs refused to pay the full balance of the purchase price until their claim for compensation was settled and this expressed an intention not to be bound by the contract — Finding that clause nine of the contract gave the purchaser a right to be paid once compensation had been assessed but it did not allow the purchaser to hold up on completion.
Practice and Procedure - Pleading
Revenue Law - Stamp Duty
Statute - Interpretation — Stamp Duties Ordinance, s. 56
Facts: Premium contract of insurance — No express term that a premium must be paid before the contract took effect — No premium paid — Subject matter destroyed — Owner claimed indemnity under policy — Whether term should be implied in contract of insurance that the right to an indemnity by the assured is conditional on previous payment of the premium
Facts: Form of proposal contained trap — Non-disclosure of trap by insurer to insured
Facts: Agent concluded contract of marine insurance on behalf of defendant principal — Insured gave notice to agent relative to subject matter of contract — Whether notice to agent of principal constituted notice to principal — No evidence led that principal stipulated manner in which notice should be given
Facts: Plaintiff insured motor vessel with defendant — Defendant disputed claim of plaintiff that insurance covered whole of vessel as distinct from the hull only — Whether word “vessel” must be given the meaning “entire vessel” or “hull” only
Facts: Plaintiff alleged that contract of marine insurance was concluded by defendant — No policy of insurance produced in evidence — Proposal form executed by agent of plaintiff and letter of defendant submitted as evidence of concluded contract — Whether documents submitted constituted evidence of an offer by the plaintiff and acceptance of that offer by the defendant
Facts: Formation of contract proved by submission of two related documents — Defendant sought to introduce verbal agreement to refute agreed terms of written contract — Verbal agreement found to be inconsistent with written agreement
Facts: Plaintiff insured motor vessel in name of company — Plaintiff intended to transfer ownership of vessel to company at later date — Company subsequently leased vessel from owner — Court order that company be joined with plaintiff as party to proceedings — No policy of insurance issued or produced in evidence — No premium paid — Whether concluded contract of marine insurance between plaintiff and defendant — Whether company held an insurable interest in the concluded contract of marine insurance — Whether statement of fact that company was owner was material — Whether contract, if in existence, should be set aside on grounds of mutual mistake — Whether defendant could avoid contract by special defence that no stamp duty payable
Facts: No policy issued by insurer — Absence of knowledge of common form policy risks — Primary rule of construction applied — In absence of evidence to contrary word to be given its ordinary meaning
Facts: Form filled in by agent of defendant for plaintiff — Whether agent of defendant acting as agent of applicant at time form is filled in or acting as agent of defendant insurer — No evidence led that agent at time of filling in proposal form was acting within scope of his authority as agent of defendant — Finding that there was nothing binding between plaintiff and defendant at time of filling in of proposal form as it was not subsequently disclosed to defendant before date at which plaintiff alleged contract of insurance made
Facts: Defendant maintained at trial that before risk of insurance passed to insurer, insured required to have vessel inspected and policy of insurance issued by insurer — Requirements constituted conditions precedent — Amended defence conditions not pleaded in accordance with order 22, Rule 17, Supreme Court Rules of Belize
Facts: Policy of marine insurance governed by s. 56(7) of Stamp Duty Ordinance, Cap. 39 — Language of Ordinance capable of two interpretations — Whether intention of Legislature to change common law relating to stamp duty on policies of marine insurance — Whether proper construction of s. 56(7) of Ordinance was that contracts effected by unstamped or insufficiently stamped policies could be saved upon payment of duty and penalties.
Facts: Imposition of stamp duty in accordance with s. 56 Stamp Duties Ordinance, Cap. 39 — Whether s. 56(7) of Ordinance created absolute defence to action where no document to stamp — Plaintiff alleged existence of contract of insurance by documents other than a written policy of insurance issued by insurer — Finding that documents did not constitute a complete contract within contemplation of s. 56(6) of Ordinance — Finding that fact stamp duty not payable on document was no answer to question raised by defendant in reliance on s. 56(7) — Language of Ordinance ambiguous — Whether court should adopt construction that would support an intention on the part of the Legislature to alter the common law with respect to stamp duty on policies of marine insurance — History of stamp duty law in England reviewed
Held: (1) There is no principle of law that there must be implied in a contract of insurance a provision that the right to indemnity by an assured is conditional on his previous payment of premium; (2) As soon as there is a completed contract, in the absence of an express condition stipulating otherwise, the insurer becomes liable and the assured becomes bound to pay the premium; (3) In the instant case, there was a concluded contract for the defendant company to insure the plaintiff's vessel and there were no stipulations that the premiums had to be paid before the contract came into force. The insurers were therefore liable under the policy; (4) The insurers were entitled to deduct the premium agreed on from the sums payable under the policy.
Held: Where insurer does not disclose a trap, court should give to the form of proposal that construction which accords with the intention of the proposer.
Held: Judgment for plaintiff.
Held: At time of concluding contract both plaintiff and defendant were ad idem as to proposal form that vessel meant entire vessel and not hull alone — Judgment entered for plaintiff.
Held: The documents constituted a binding contract between plaintiff and defendant.
Held: Written agreement subsequent to verbal agreement — Verbal agreement excluded — Judgment for plaintiff.
Held: Judgment for plaintiff on claim — Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim for payment of premiums.
Held: Parties to be taken to have understood “marine risks” to mean risks of or belonging to, found in or produced by the sea.
Held: Judgment for plaintiff on other grounds.
Held: Court unable to take cognizance of conditions not pleased in amended defence of insurer.
Held: It was not the intention of the Legislature to alter the common law — Finding that proper construction of s. 56(7) of Ordinance was that contracts effected by unstamped or insufficiently stamped policies could be saved upon payment of duty and penalties.
This is an action to claim indemnity on an alleged contract of insurance. But peculiarly, no policy of insurance was issued nor produced in evidence, and peculiarly also, no premium was paid. The consequence is that the evidence on which the submissions of both counsel in this case are based is derived largely from two written documents and the verbal testimony of Mr. David Gegg, to whom I shall refer hereafter as “the plaintiff” unless I specifically describe him by his name, Mr. King and Mr. Rogers, the representative of the defendant. But before I give consideration to that evidence, I must mention an event which took place in the course of these proceedings. After the closing addresses of counsel and whilst studying the evidence, it appeared to me that the plaintiff might not be a party to the contract, if there was a contract, but that a company by the name of Bel Reef Scuba Tours Ltd., to which I shall refer hereafter by that name, might be. I therefore invited counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant to attend the court in order that they might, inter alia, make submissions on whether pursuant to order 17, rules 2 and 12 of the Supreme Court Rules, Bel Reef Scuba Tours Ltd., should be joined with the plaintiff or substituted for the plaintiff as a party to this action. Having heard the submissions of counsel, I ruled that Bel Reef Scuba Tours Ltd., could be joined with the plaintiff as a party to these proceedings and on counsel for the plaintiff submitting in writing the consent of Bel Reef Scuba Tours Ltd., to be joined, I so ordered.
Of the written documents in this case which play an important part in the evidence, one is headed: “Application For...
To continue reading
Request your trial