A Rs 36 Lakh Stock Loss Across Two Fire Policies, a Negligent Electrician and a Late Intimation
A garment trader insures her stock-in-trade under two fire policies: Policy X with Insurer A for Rs 20 lakh and Policy Y with Insurer B for Rs 10 lakh. At the time of a fire, the stock actually in the godown is valued at Rs 36 lakh. The fire started when an electrician hired by the trader used a welding torch without a fire screen and sparks ignited packing material. She also holds a marine policy on goods already shipped, which were stored in a separate section of the same godown and were destroyed in the same fire. Both fire policies contain an average (under-insurance) clause and a condition requiring immediate intimation. The manager informed Insurer A the same day but informed Insurer B only after nine days, by which time A's surveyor had already inspected and photographed the site. The trader wants to claim the full Rs 36 lakh, arguing that the electrician was negligent but that the loss itself was accidental.
1. Apply the average clause. State the maximum the fire policies can pay in total and how it is divided between Insurer A and Insurer B, and say what the trader bears herself.
Read the worked answer
The insured value on the fire cover is Rs 20 lakh + Rs 10 lakh = Rs 30 lakh against stock worth Rs 36 lakh, so she is under-insured by Rs 6 lakh.
The average clause scales the loss by the ratio of sum insured to value: Rs 36 lakh × (30/36) = Rs 30 lakh is the maximum recoverable across both policies.
Division between the insurers, on sums insured (Rs 30 lakh total):
- Insurer A: 20/30 × 30 lakh = Rs 20 lakh.
- Insurer B: 10/30 × 30 lakh = Rs 10 lakh.
The same answer comes out if each policy's average clause is applied separately - A: 36 × 20/36 = Rs 20 lakh; B: 36 × 10/36 = Rs 10 lakh - which is a useful cross-check because each insurer will apply its own clause to its own sum insured.
She bears Rs 6 lakh herself. That is the point of the clause: it is not a penalty but the consequence of insuring Rs 36 lakh of stock for Rs 30 lakh. The full Rs 36 lakh is not payable under any reading, because indemnity caps recovery at the actual loss and the sum insured caps it further.
2. The insurer argues the electrician's negligence takes the loss outside the cover. Assess that argument and explain what right the paying insurer acquires against the electrician.
Read the worked answer
Negligence by a hired workman does not, by itself, convert an accidental fire into an excluded one. The test is proximate cause: what set the loss in motion? Here it is fire, ignited by welding sparks - a fire loss, not a deliberate act of the insured. The electrician's carelessness is the route to the fire, not a separate excluded peril. The claim stands on causation unless the policy excludes loss caused by the insured's own negligence, by contractors' operations, or by wilful acts - and none of those is stated here. Had the trader herself ordered the torch used next to open packing material knowing the risk, the argument would be much stronger for the insurer.
After paying, the insurer acquires subrogation rights: it steps into the trader's shoes and may recover the outlay from the electrician whose negligence caused the loss. Two practical consequences for the trader: she must not release the electrician from liability or settle privately with him without the insurer's consent, and she must preserve his identity, the job record and the payment proof for the insurer's recovery action. Payment under the policy does not extinguish her claim against him - it transfers it.
3. Decide how to handle the nine-day delay in informing Insurer B and whether the marine policy can also be claimed on for the goods destroyed in the godown.
Read the worked answer
Late intimation. Nine days is a breach of a stated condition, but a breach that entitles an insurer to reject only where it has been materially prejudiced - typically by loss of the chance to inspect the site, examine the stock or verify the loss. Here the evidence is intact: Insurer A's surveyor inspected and photographed the site on day one, and B can associate with that survey and rely on its report. The course is to write to B at once, enclose A's survey report and photographs, explain the delay factually, request that B join or appoint its own surveyor, and press for payment of its Rs 10 lakh share. Do not present the delay as irrelevant; present it as non-prejudicial, and get B's position in writing, because a silent rejection becomes a dispute later.
Marine policy. Transit cover generally ends when the goods are landed and stored, so a fire in a godown after the voyage has ended is usually outside its scope unless storage is specifically covered. Even where it does respond, indemnity and the principle against double recovery bar her from collecting the same loss twice. The correct sequence is to check the marine cover's termination point first; if it responds, the loss is shared by contribution and the fire insurers pay only their share, and if it does not, the fire policies carry the loss subject to the average clause.