Even though the “theft by employees” section of a policy was not selected by the insured, the insured was covered under the “theft” section of the policy for theft by employees. “Theft” includes theft by employees unless this is excluded. The terms of the contract were not open to more than one interpretation nor was it plain that something had gone wrong with the wording. If this conclusion was wrong, the construction was not in any event contrary to business commonsense (Ted Baker Plc v Axa Insurance UK Plc).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Construction of insurance policy
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to...
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to and is not too long."
Senior Legal Counsel, Bankwest Business
Bank of Western Australia Ltd