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 (Contra Proferentem rule).

• 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.

• The judgment is in favour of the plaintiff, with costs awarded.