Some cases are just dead interesting. Dunnage v Randall [2016] 2 WLR 839, [2015] WLR(D) 287, [2015] EWCA Civ 673 is one of them. A man sued the estate of his late uncle for compensation for injuries he suffered when his uncle poured petrol on himself and set it alight. Despite the man’s efforts to prevent this tragedy, his uncle, a sufferer of schizophrenia, died. The man jumped off a balcony to escape, having suffered burns. Now you might think it heartless to sue to the disadvantage of the beneficiaries of the uncle’s estate in the circumstances. But of course there was an insurer to upset the analysis. The uncle was insured under a household policy against liability for accidentally causing bodily injury. It was the insurer arguing that the mad have a different duty of care. The trial judge agreed. The Court of Appeal reversed. Lady Justice Rafferty’s leading judgment is stylish.
See also:
- Weird contribution claims
- Costs of insurance loss adjusters
- Solicitors’ liability paper; conflicts of lawyers acting for insurer and insured
- A non-exhaustive bibliography on lawyers’ conflicts of duties between insurer and insured
- Does a subrogated claim give rise to a general res judicata if an insured’s loss is partly insured and partly uninsured?
