Simmonds v. Cockell (1920) All ER Rep. 162

Simmonds v. Cockell (1920) All ER Rep. 162

FACTS-

The plaintiff sues an underwriting member of Lloyd's under a policy of insurance against burglary, housebreaking, and theft dated May 1, 1919.
During the policy's currency, the premises were broken into, and approximately £475 worth of the plaintiff's goods were stolen.
The defendant's defence revolves around one point: whether the warranty of continuous occupancy of the premises has been breached.
The defendant argues that any absence constitutes a breach of the warranty, while the plaintiff contends that the warranty refers to continuous residential use of the premises.

ISSUE-

The crucial issue is whether the plaintiff's absence from the premises during the burglary constitutes a breach of the warranty of continuous occupancy.

RULE-

Ambiguities in clauses drawn by a party for their own protection must be construed against them.
If the language of a warranty in a policy is ambiguous, it should be interpreted against the underwriter who inserted it for their own protection.

HELD-

The warranty in question states that the premises must be "always occupied."
The plaintiff and his wife were absent from the premises for several hours on the day of the burglary.
The judge interprets the warranty as requiring continuous occupation for residential purposes, not continuous physical presence on the premises.
If the warranty were construed differently, it would be highly ambiguous and would be interpreted against the defendant under the principle of insurance law.