FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES
Category Legal Affairs
SUB CATEGORIES General | 

Endorsement overrides policy terms

26 May 2015 Norton Rose Fulbright
Patrick Bracher

Patrick Bracher

“Where an endorsement conflicts with the body of an insurance policy, the endorsement controls.” So said a US court in a claim by sugar farmers for assistance in the defence of a claim for the negligent spraying of weed killer on the neighbouring date palm farm.

The policy contained an exclusion for claims arising from “contamination”. But this was trumped by a specific endorsement for injury or damage to property or crops treated by aerial application of chemicals.

This is a good reminder of a fairly obvious point. The legal position under South African law would be the same. But the courts will first see if the two provisions can make sense when read together.

[National Union Fire Insurance Co of Pittsburgh v Florida Crystals Corp]

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Comments

Added by CF Furstenburg, 04 Jun 2015
Thank you Patrick, it makes sense and also how it has always been understood by myself
Report Abuse

Comment on this post

Name*
Email Address*
Comment
Security Check *
   
Quick Polls

QUESTION

The latest salvo in the active versus passive debate suggests that passive has an edge in highly efficient markets, or where the share universe is relatively small. In this context, how do you approach SA Equity investing?

ANSWER

Active always, the experts know best
Active, but favour the smaller funds
Passive for the win
Strike a balance between the two
fanews magazine
FAnews October 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

The township economy: an overlooked insurance market
FSCA regulates crypto assets: a new era for investors
Building trust: one epic client experience at a time
Two-Pot System rollout underlines the value of financial advice
The future looks bright for construction
Subscribe now