N. N. EST METALS COMPANY LTD v. HOLLARD INSURANCE CO. LTD
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR, ESQ., JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Insurance Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff's claim for payment of the total sum insured under an all-risk insurance policy for damages caused by flooding was largely dismissed. The court found that the principle of indemnity insurance requires compensation to be limited to actual losses incurred, not the upper limit of the insured value. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that all claimed damages were covered items under the insurance policy. The defendant’s assessment and offer were deemed reasonable. The court awarded the plaintiff GH¢42,529.03 based on the defendant's analysis but dismissed the rest of the claims as unproved and without merit.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff claim against the Defendant in the writ of summons the following:
i. An order directed at the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the revised total sum insured for the policy No C/1001/1007/009999/11/25 being the total sum of Gh¢341.500.
ii. Special damages for the cost incurred by the Plaintiff on account of the breach of the said policy by the Defendant or alternatively general damages for breach of the policy.
iii. Interest on the said amounts in (i) and (ii) above from the 4th day of June, 2015 till date of final payment
iv. Costs of this legal action.
Plaintiff situate its claim based on an insurance policy for an all risk cover where it notes that in consideration of a premium of Gh¢882.22 paid from November 2014 till the 6th of November, 2015, insured with the Defendant all its items that might be damaged from accidental destruction. To Plaintiff the items insured and specified in the policy was revised to an amount of GH¢341,500 and so was the premium payable. That due to the notorious flooding of Accra on the 3rd of June, 2015, its properties were damaged in the said flooding and duly notified Defendant of the occurrence of the event which entitled it to claim indemnity whereupon Defendant dispatched its officers to the premises of Plaintiff to assess the extent of damage.
Defendant according to Plaintiff was further provided with documents on the damaged property but has not shown good faith by refusing to pay Plaintiff the insured value of the property damaged. Plaintiff avers that Defendant demanded for more documents when its lawyers wrote to Defendant and this to Plaintiff was a delay tactics adopted by Defendant from settling its debt. Plaintiff then proceeded to particularize its loss in terms of machinery that needed replacement and whose non replacement caused GH¢12,200 daily loss, payment of GH¢320,000 to its workers for no work done as the machines were not replaced and the payment of GH¢39,250 for replacement of furniture. And the issuance of a cheque with the value of GH¢27,000 was far below the value of what it expected.
And having breached the terms of the insurance contract seeks the reliefs stated on the endorsement on the writ. Defendant has denied being in breach of the terms of the insurance policy as the policy covered only specified items listed in the schedule to the policy. And to Defendant not all the insured property of the Plaintiff was damaged or affected by the flood as the machines that were d