Contractor's all risks insurance fortuity revisited [electronic resource]
Language: English Series: RICS Feature ; 4 July 2007 Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Discusses "CA Blackwell v Gerling Allegemeine Verischerungs AG" ([2007] EOHC 94 (Comn), unreported) which considered whether a contractor was covered under a Contractor's All Risks (CAR) insurance policy when rain caused damage to its earth moving works. The insurer claimed the damage was inevitable and the loss resulted from wilful misconduct. However, while the contractor may have been negligent, it had not been reckless and the damage was covered by the CAR. In addition, an element of fortuity existed which meant the damage was not inevitable.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 140209-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses "CA Blackwell v Gerling Allegemeine Verischerungs AG" ([2007] EOHC 94 (Comn), unreported) which considered whether a contractor was covered under a Contractor's All Risks (CAR) insurance policy when rain caused damage to its earth moving works. The insurer claimed the damage was inevitable and the loss resulted from wilful misconduct. However, while the contractor may have been negligent, it had not been reckless and the damage was covered by the CAR. In addition, an element of fortuity existed which meant the damage was not inevitable.