Fire Loss, Average Clause and Subrogation at a Garment Warehouse
During a festival-season stock build-up, a garment manufacturer's warehouse in Surat caught fire. The fire policy on stock had a sum insured of ₹1.20 crore, while the stock actually at risk on the date of loss was ₹2.00 crore. The insured had increased purchases on 60-day credit and had not notified the insurer. The fire began when a contractor's welding spark ignited packing material. The loss was assessed at ₹60 lakh before salvage; damaged fabric with a resale value of ₹9 lakh was retained by the insured. The policy contains the standard average (underinsurance) condition and a subrogation clause. The insured argues that since the premium was paid promptly, the full ₹60 lakh should be paid, and that any recovery from the contractor belongs to the insured because the contractor was hired by the insured.
1. Calculate the amount payable under the policy, showing how the average clause and salvage affect the settlement.
Read the worked answer
The average condition compares the sum insured with the value at risk: ₹1.20 crore ÷ ₹2.00 crore = 60%. The policy therefore pays 60% of the loss, not the full amount. Gross loss is ₹60 lakh × 60% = ₹36 lakh. Salvage of ₹9 lakh was retained by the insured. Under the salvage condition the insurer is entitled to salvage, so if the insured keeps it, the value is deducted: ₹36 lakh − ₹9 lakh = ₹27 lakh net payable. Prompt premium payment does not override average; average is a rating remedy for underinsurance, not a penalty for late payment, and the premium was calculated on a lower sum insured. The insured cannot keep both the full claim and the salvage. If the salvage is instead sold and the proceeds handed to the insurer, the insurer pays ₹36 lakh and takes the ₹9 lakh; the net economic result to the insured is still ₹27 lakh. The insured bears the uninsured portion of the loss.
2. After paying the claim, can the insurer pursue the welding contractor? How should the uninsured balance be treated?
Read the worked answer
Yes, subject to the subrogation clause. Once the insurer pays the claim, it steps into the insured's shoes and may sue the negligent contractor for the loss. But subrogation is limited to the amount the insurer has paid; the insurer cannot recover more than its outlay and cannot profit from the claim. On these figures the insurer paid ₹36 lakh gross, or ₹27 lakh net after salvage. It may pursue the contractor up to that paid amount, but the insured retains the right to recover the uninsured balance of the loss. If the insurer recovers more than it paid, the surplus belongs to the insured. The insurer should not settle with the contractor in a way that prejudices the insured's remaining claim. Practical steps are to preserve evidence of the welding work, notify the contractor of the subrogated claim, and keep the insured informed because the insured must cooperate and may need to join the action for the uninsured portion.
3. What underwriting and principles-of-insurance lesson does this case illustrate about sum insured and disclosure?
Read the worked answer
The case illustrates indemnity, average and the duty to disclose material changes. The sum insured should reflect the maximum value likely to be at risk during the policy period, not a convenient round figure. Seasonal stock build-ups, new credit purchases and storage at additional locations are material facts because they increase the value at risk and the likely loss. The insured's failure to notify the increase does not automatically void the policy, but it triggers average and leaves the insured bearing part of the loss. A prudent underwriter should ask for stock values, seasonal peaks and turnover, and should recommend a declaration or floater arrangement where values fluctuate. The insured should review sums insured before peak seasons. The case also shows that the principle of indemnity is not a promise to pay the invoice value of every loss; it restores the insured only to the extent of the insured value, after salvage and other recoveries.