The Commercial Court has judged in favour of various contingency market insurers in a claim relating to the cancellation of the Sahara Cup cricket tournament in September 2000.
International Management Group (IMG) brought a claim for losses incurred due to the cancellation of the tournament, which was due to have taken place between India and Pakistan in Toronto.
The Court had to rule on the definition of Œnecessary¹ in the context of a contingency market cancellation and abandonment warranty.
The policy in this case read: "It is warranted that the assured shall ensure all necessary licenses, visas and permits are obtained within sufficient time prior to the insured event."
The Commercial Court held that in the context of contingency insurance, "necessary" did not mean legally necessary, it meant practically necessary.
The Court found in favour of the insurers in relation to various non-disclosure and misrepresentation defences.
Ben Cook
International Management Group (IMG) brought a claim for losses incurred due to the cancellation of the tournament, which was due to have taken place between India and Pakistan in Toronto.
The Court had to rule on the definition of Œnecessary¹ in the context of a contingency market cancellation and abandonment warranty.
The policy in this case read: "It is warranted that the assured shall ensure all necessary licenses, visas and permits are obtained within sufficient time prior to the insured event."
The Commercial Court held that in the context of contingency insurance, "necessary" did not mean legally necessary, it meant practically necessary.
The Court found in favour of the insurers in relation to various non-disclosure and misrepresentation defences.
