Tonkin and another v UK Insurance (No 2)
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 1185 (TCC), 18 May 2006. Considers the correct value of a reinstatement claim made by homeowners against their insurer following a house fire. Claimants (T) alleged insurer (U) had wrongly delayed paying the claim and U then wrongly repudiated liability, claiming T had failed to provide them with proper information as to the cost of reinstatement. "Held": the judge found in favour of U and T was ordered to pay costs. T had sought to introduce changes to what had existed before the fire without telling U which left it to U to identify changes and improvements, which was wrong in principle. Therefore U's sceptical response to the claim was justified as T's behaviour was unreasonable. Sets out the court's guidelines on the proper approach to reinstatement claims.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 135140-2001 |
[2006] EWHC 1185 (TCC), 18 May 2006. Considers the correct value of a reinstatement claim made by homeowners against their insurer following a house fire. Claimants (T) alleged insurer (U) had wrongly delayed paying the claim and U then wrongly repudiated liability, claiming T had failed to provide them with proper information as to the cost of reinstatement. "Held": the judge found in favour of U and T was ordered to pay costs. T had sought to introduce changes to what had existed before the fire without telling U which left it to U to identify changes and improvements, which was wrong in principle. Therefore U's sceptical response to the claim was justified as T's behaviour was unreasonable. Sets out the court's guidelines on the proper approach to reinstatement claims.