FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES
Category Legal Affairs
SUB CATEGORIES General | 

Storm insurance and landslip

03 June 2022 Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright
Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright

Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright

In this 1976 judgment the policy covered damage caused by a storm.  The policy excluded damage caused by subsidence or landslip.

The retaining wall on a mountain slope collapsed after a heavy rainfall damaging property in the lower premises.  One wall was poorly designed and had an inadequate footing and insufficient weepholes to drain off water with the result that after a strong wind accompanied by heavy rainfall the walls had collapsed and caused the damage.

The court held that that damage was caused by landslip and not a storm. That was despite the retaining wall that had been put there in an attempt to prevent it. No indemnity was due under the policy.

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Quick Polls

QUESTION

In navigating the dynamic landscape of financial intermediaries in 2024, which strategy do you believe is most crucial for success?

ANSWER

Prioritising client needs
Embracing technological advancements
Staying abreast of regulatory developments
All of the above
fanews magazine
FAnews February 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

On the insurance industry’s radar in 2024
Insurers, risk managers unsure of AI’s judgement credentials
Is offshore the place to be in 2024?
Gap claims: erosion of medical benefits, soaring specialist fees
Investments and retirement… is conventional wisdom under threat?
Subscribe now