Beaumont v Humberts
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8829) 23 July 1988, 104-114(6)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 19 February 1988 In this action the plaintiff Mr Beaumont (B) sued a firm of surveyors Humberts (H) in respect of a valuation for reinstatement insurance purposes of a listed house. Eighteen months after the valuation was carried out the house was badly damaged by a fire . B, having received £175,000 from his insurers, sued H in negligence alleging that the proper reinstatment figure should be £300,000. B also took action against the bank and H`s solicitors for alleged failure to warn him of the consequences of a disclaimer of liability included in the bank`s mortgage report . QBD dismissed the cases against the bank and the solicitors on the ground that as B did not himself see the disclaimer or know about it, and H did not expect any disclaimer to be sent to B, it had not relevance to H`s liability . Found on evidence that H had not been negligent in deciding not to value on the basis of the exact replication of the property. Action dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39544 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 17394-1001 |
QBD 19 February 1988 In this action the plaintiff Mr Beaumont (B) sued a firm of surveyors Humberts (H) in respect of a valuation for reinstatement insurance purposes of a listed house. Eighteen months after the valuation was carried out the house was badly damaged by a fire . B, having received £175,000 from his insurers, sued H in negligence alleging that the proper reinstatment figure should be £300,000. B also took action against the bank and H`s solicitors for alleged failure to warn him of the consequences of a disclaimer of liability included in the bank`s mortgage report . QBD dismissed the cases against the bank and the solicitors on the ground that as B did not himself see the disclaimer or know about it, and H did not expect any disclaimer to be sent to B, it had not relevance to H`s liability . Found on evidence that H had not been negligent in deciding not to value on the basis of the exact replication of the property. Action dismissed.