Legal News

Tenant’s insurance claim fails on a technicality (Palliser v Fate)

Tenant’s insurance claim fails on a technicality (Palliser v Fate)
Published on: 21 January 2019
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Tenant’s insurance claim fails on a technicality (Palliser v Fate)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What were the issues involved?
  • What did the court decide on the ‘property not belonging to’ Fate issue?
  • What did the court decide on the Berni Inns defence?
  • What is the Berni Inns defence?
  • Why did the Berni Inns defence not apply?
  • What did the court decide on loss of profits?
  • What was the net result?
  • Case details

Article summary

Property analysis: A tenant’s claim for finishing off works its insolvent landlord had not carried out failed. The damage was caused by a fire due to the landlord’s negligence. The tenant had been successful in a previous negligence claim, but the landlord had under-insured. The tenant failed in its subsequent claim, under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010), for the further refurbishment costs as they were not covered under the particular section claimed under in the insurance policy and so the insurer was not liable under TP(RAI)A 2010. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents