Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Insurance Contracts Must Be Interpreted Strictly; Exclusion Clauses Must Be Proven By Insurer With Clear Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Against United India Insurance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has emphasized that insurance contracts must be interpreted strictly, particularly when it comes to exclusion clauses. The Court overturned an NCDRC order directing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay an insurance claim of Rs. 39,09,92,828/- to Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. for a bridge collapse during construction.

The case involves an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against an NCDRC order which directed the insurance company to pay a substantial insurance claim related to the collapse of a bridge on NH-76 at Kota, Rajasthan. The bridge construction was contracted to a joint venture of Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. and Gammon India Ltd. under a Contractor’s All Risk Insurance Policy.

Application and interpretation of exclusion clauses within the insurance policy.

Evaluation of expert evidence and surveyor’s reports regarding the cause of the bridge collapse.

The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of strict interpretation of insurance contracts, particularly exclusion clauses. The burden of proving the applicability of such clauses rests with the insurer.

"Exclusion clauses must be proven by the insurer with clear evidence," the Court stated, referencing prior judgments in Texco Marketing P. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and others.

The Court examined the Expert Committee’s report, constituted by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which identified multiple factors contributing to the collapse, including design flaws and construction lapses.

The surveyor’s report supported these findings, citing deviations from approved construction sequences and inadequate stability measures.

Reports by independent experts relied upon by the respondents were deemed theoretical and not based on site inspections.

Justification of Exclusion Clauses: The Supreme Court found sufficient grounds for the insurer’s repudiation of the claim based on the credible evidence provided by the surveyor’s report and the Expert Committee’s findings.

"The burden on the insurer to prove the applicability of an exclusion clause has been met," the Court concluded.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC order. The insurer's decision to repudiate the insurance claim was upheld, and no costs were awarded.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2024

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Similar News