MANTRAC GHANA LTD vs STAR ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Insurance Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, Mantrac Ghana Ltd, claimed against the defendant insurance company for the sum of GH¢1,367,527.92 for damages from a flood under an Assets All Risks Policy. The properties insured included those of its subsidiaries, but the defendant contended the policy did not cover said subsidiaries. The court found that Delta Equipment Ltd, one of the subsidiaries, was a separate legal entity requiring its own insurance policy. Evidence presented did not prove that the defendant accepted premium for the subsidiary over eight years or that Mantrac held property in trust for others. Consequently, the claims were dismissed, and costs awarded to the defendant.
The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of cash the sum of GH¢1, 367, 527. 92 being the balance of full compensation of insurance as per an Assets All Risks Policy Cover taken by the Defendant Company with Policy No. SAC-01-ARR-11-0291 USD-P which the Defendant Company insured the Plaintiff’s properties with all its divisions throughout the country where it operates.
b. General Damages for breach of contract or in the alternative interest at the current bank lending rate from 25-10-2011 to the date of final payment.
c. Costs.
The Plaintiff in its Statement of Claim contended that it had an Assets All Risks Policy with the Defendant Company from 1st January 2011 to 31st December 2011. The properties insured included buildings, fixtures and fittings as well as plant and machinery.
It also included furniture, computers and accessories, raw materials and work in progress as well as goods held in trust or on commission with others.
This policy was to cover all its property in all locations.
It was the Plaintiff’s case that sometime in or about 25th and 26th October 2011, there was a heavy rainfall which flooded its premises and destroyed many of its equipment and properties valued at several millions of cedis.
The initial value of goods excluding customer vehicles were inventoried at GH¢4, 772, 648. 25. The Insurance Brokers transmitted the inventory to the Defendant for payment.
A meeting was arranged with the Defendant and the Loss Adjuster.
Though it had been agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff was to finance certain repairs so they could continue in business, these were not factored into the Loss Adjuster’s report.
The Loss Adjuster however made provision for CAT parts and Generator sets from Delta Equipment.
He recommended the payment of $1, 299, 709. 17. This did not take into account the cost of the computers and other equipment which the Plaintiff had expended in order to remain in business.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid GH¢2, 350, 414. 70 but have refused to pay an amount of GH¢214, 835. 10 being the cost of Mantrac Computers, UPS, Chargers and Dock Stations, Furniture, Power House, Cleaning of Debris, Construction of Wall and painting of the affected area.
The Defendant had also refused to pay an amount of GH¢49, 418. 00 being the cost of Mantrac Cruz and Spark vehicles together with the duty paid on them.
The Defendant had also not paid an amount of GH¢1, 103, 274. 82 be