In a judgment launched on Friday, 1st March 2024, the Caribbean Courtroom of Justice (CCJ) dismissed the enchantment within the case Insurance coverage Company of Belize Restricted v Kahtal Resorts Worldwide Restricted [BZCV2023/004], thereby upholding the choice of the Courtroom of Attraction of Belize. Thus, Kahtal Resorts Worldwide Restricted weren’t prevented from recovering compensation below the insurance coverage coverage with the Insurance coverage Company of Belize for injury to a vessel.
The insured vessel sank resulting from entry of water into the vessel throughout a thunderstorm. Kahtal sought to be indemnified below the coverage masking loss or injury to the vessel. The insurers denied the declare, and relied on an exclusion clause (Exclusion Clause 15) that acknowledged no declare could be allowed for loss or injury whereas the vessel is moored until it resulted from a collision with one other vessel. The Excessive Courtroom agreed with the insurers, reasoning {that a} vessel tied to a dock was moored and, due to this fact, the exclusion clause utilized.
On enchantment, the Courtroom of Attraction disagreed, stating that when the vessel was tied to a dock, it couldn’t be thought-about moored throughout the strict which means of the phrase, which could be interpreted as a vessel tied on the bow and that might swing freely on the tide. The Courtroom of Attraction, due to this fact, reversed the Excessive Courtroom resolution, holding that the trial choose had erred in making use of the exclusion clause. The insurance coverage firm then appealed to the CCJ, requesting the choice of the Courtroom of Attraction to be put aside and the Excessive Courtroom’s resolution restored.
The CCJ, by a majority resolution of three to 2, sided with the insured. Justice Andrew Burgess utilized this Courtroom’s method to contractual interpretation in Blairmont Rice Investments Inc v Kayman Sankar Co Ltd, emphasizing an goal and contextual methodology and adopted the technical which means of the phrase “moored” within the context of marine insurance coverage. The bulk highlighted that Exclusion Clause 15 should be learn within the context of the complete insurance coverage coverage.
In a concurring judgment, Justice Peter Jamadar agreed with Justice Burgess; he highlighted the significance of the contra proferentem rule (legislation that dictates how ambiguous clauses in a contract could also be interpreted in opposition to the drafter) in insurance coverage contracts, particularly in instances with an imbalance in bargaining energy. Justice Jamadar reviewed the jurisprudence on the contra proferentem rule, recognized options within the case indicating ambiguity within the wording of the exclusion clause and harassed the precept of fine religion in insurance coverage contracts: insurers should draft phrases with readability and precision.
In dissent, Justice Denys Barrow argued that the exclusion clause aimed to exclude protection for stationary vessels, whatever the time period used. Justice Barrow determined the right method was to find out what cowl the insurers had been promoting and this was the idea for deciding the which means of “moored”. Justice Barrow harassed that the contrasting meanings recognised by the courts beneath didn’t have an effect on the conclusion that the coverage was not supposed to cowl a vessel whereas it’s is stationary and, by no matter phrase it’s described, such a vessel is excluded from cowl.
Within the remaining evaluation, the Courtroom upheld the Courtroom of Attraction’s resolution and dismissed the enchantment on the preliminary level. The insurers had been directed to pay prices.
The members of the panel had been CCJ President Adrian Saunders, and Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Burgess, and Jamadar. Mr. Darrell S. Bradley, Ms. Julie-Ann Ellis-Bradley, and Ms. Kimberly Wallace appeared for the Appellant. Ms. Magali Marin Younger SC and Mr. Allister Tre Jenkins appeared for the Respondent.
The complete CCJ judgment is on the market on its web site at www.ccj.org.
Donate At Caribbean Information Service, we don’t cost for our content material and we wish to maintain it that means. We’re searching for assist from people and organisations so we are able to
proceed our work & develop CNS additional.
