- 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
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial