000			01466cab a2200193 4500
001			##L135140
008			060927n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u135140
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aTonkin and another v UK Insurance (No 2)
260			_c2006
520			_a[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.
590			_aIKA171006
650	2	4	_aTONKIN AND ANOTHER V UK INSURANCE (NO 2)
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY VALUATION AND APPRAISAL-INSURANCE VALUATION-PROPERTY INSURANCE ASSESSMENT-REINSTATEMENT COST ASSESSMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/1185.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77800 _d77800