exclusion clause - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim merely by invoking an exclusion clause for wear and tear. The burden lies on the insurer to prove material non-disclosure, fraud, or that the loss was definitively caused by an excluded peril. A valid statutory fitness certificate creates a strong presumption of the equipment's insurable condition, shifting the evidentiary onus onto the insurer. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a sugar mill, held an insurance policy from National Insurance Co. Ltd. covering its boiler. During the policy period in May 2005, an incident occurred causing two boiler tubes to detach. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Exclusion Clause 5, which excludes losses from wear, corrosion, and gradual deterioration. It relied on a surveyor's ...

The Supreme Court held that in fire insurance claims, the precise cause of fire is immaterial unless fraud or instigation by the insured is proven. The insured is not required to prove the exact origin if the loss is due to fire. Exclusion clauses must be interpreted narrowly, and coverage provisions broadly, with ambiguities resolved in favor of the insured. Facts Of The Case: The case involves cross-appeals arising from a fire insurance claim dispute. Orion Commerx Pvt. Ltd. (the Insured) suffered a fire at its premises on September 25, 2010. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim, primarily relying on the report of its final Surveyor, which concluded the fire was not accidental and originated from multiple sources, thus excluding it from policy coverage...

Tag: exclusion clause

Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?