Posted Thursday 3rd June 2021
In Burnett v International Insurance Co of Hanover Ltd [2021] UKSC 12 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning the interpretation of a public liability insurance policy.
In 2013, a door steward at a pub in Aberdeen choked a customer to death. The door steward was charged with murder however the jury only convicted him of assault and the sentencing judge imposed a non-custodial sentence. Subsequently, the customer’s widow raised a civil action and claimed against the pub’s public liability insurance policy.
The insurance policy covered accidental injury or death, but excluded ‘liability arising out of deliberate acts, wilful neglect or default.’ The insurer argued that the door steward’s acts fell within the exclusion of ‘deliberate acts’ in the policy and that on this basis the claim should be dismissed because the insurer was not liable to indemnify under the policy. Despite this, the widow’s claim succeeded. However, the insurer appealed the decision and the case made it to the Supreme Court, who then unanimously dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the ‘deliberate acts’ exclusion in the public liability insurance policy covering accidental injury and death did not protect the insurer from liability. The Supreme Court found that whilst many acts would be deliberately carried out, to exclude liability under the policy, the causing of the damage or injury must have been deliberate. The Supreme Court held that ‘deliberate acts’ were acts that were intended to cause injury or damage.
The insurer had proved only that the door steward had intended to perform a neck hold. They had not proved that he intended to cause injury or even that he was reckless about it. The Supreme Court held that recklessness requires a very different state of mind and rejected the suggestion that deliberate acts should also include reckless acts.
The case provides useful guidance on the meaning of ‘deliberate’ and ‘wilful’ in insurance policies, in line with guidance on interpretation from the case Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s judgement suggests that exclusions from cover for deliberate acts will be interpreted narrowly, given how exclusions in insurance policies are designed to restrict the scope of cover.
The case also highlights the importance of considering the commercial context surrounding insurances policies. In this case the Supreme Court recognised the commercial need to cover the unintended consequences of actions at the pub door, which often involved deliberate physical acts.
This article is for reference purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking or deciding not to take any action.
Joelson advises the founder and shareholders of InspiredMinds! on its sale to Growth Catalyst Partners
The Court of Appeal ruled that option consideration paid by a buyer should not be included in the calculation of a company's turnover for determining the purchase price.
“Ceviche was merely an idea 2 years ago. We are now a thriving new business operating with confidence thanks to the belief and support from partners such as Joelson.”
