Savash v CIS General Insurance Ltd
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Insurance Law
- Fraud
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Sozem Savash Junior's insurance claim for a burglary at 30 Minchenden Crescent was dismissed due to fraudulent exaggeration and breach of the policy's 'occupancy' conditions. Despite evidence of a burglary, the court found that the claim included items that were not present at the property and misleading invoices, rendering the claim unenforceable due to fraud. The case emphasized that fraudulent claims in insurance are unenforceable, requiring a high standard of evidence for such serious allegations in civil proceedings. It also highlighted the legal principle that principals are accountable for fraudulent acts committed by their agents within the scope of their authority.
Judgment
Mr Justice Akenhead:
These proceedings involve a claim by Mr Sozem Savash (Mr Savash Junior) against his household insurers, CIS General Insurance Ltd (“CIS”), in relation to an alleged burglary which took place on 29 May 2009 at premises at 30, Minchenden Crescent, London N14 (No. 30) which he had acquired from his father, Mr Savash Yorganci (Mr Savash Senior), in about 2000. The Claim, whilst not a large one by the standards of the TCC, was transferred to the High Court from the County Court because, apart from issues about proof of loss, allegations of fraud and dishonesty are made against Mr Savash Junior in and about the Claim as presented both before and during the proceedings. Certain it is that at least there are serious discrepancies and deficiencies in the Claimant’s evidence.
The Insurance Policy
Mr Savash Junior entered into a contract for the provision of household insurance by CIS in relation to No. 30 waiver cover effective from 20 October 2008. Relevant provisions were as follows:
A. “Definition of Terms
Contents: means household goods, personal effects and fixtures and fittings…owned by all the legal responsibility of the Family…
Family: means you or any member of your family permanently living with you…
Unoccupied: means insufficiently furnished for full habitation, or not lived in by the Family, or any other person with the Family’s permission, for more than 60 consecutive days.”
B. The Buildings Section of the policy identified that what was insured was materially "loss of or damage to the Buildings caused by…6. Escape or water…from any fixed water or heating system or fixed domestic appliance...8. Theft or attempted theft." What was expressly not insured was "loss or damage…occurring while the Buildings are Unoccupied".
C. The Contents Section of the policy contained similar provisions in relation to loss or damage to the Contents.
D. The Claims Settlement provisions for the Buildings Section were as follows:
“A.1. We will settle a claim the court for loss of or damage to property by payment or, at our option, by repair or replacement on the following basis, subject to any relevant monetary limit specified in this Section.
(i) If the repair or replacement is carried out the cost… necessarily incurred in repairing or replacing that part of the property which is lost or damaged. No deduction will be made for any depreciation and wear and tear unless at the time for loss or damage
(a) that part of the property which