Tonkin and another v UK Insurance (No 2)
Tonkin and another v UK Insurance (No 2)
- 2006
[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.
TONKIN AND ANOTHER V UK INSURANCE (NO 2)
England and Wales--1543-
[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.
TONKIN AND ANOTHER V UK INSURANCE (NO 2)
England and Wales--1543-