Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Supreme Court reviewed an application challenging the award of €400,000 for debris removal costs in an insurance dispute between Expom Ghana Limited and Vanguard Assurance Co. Ltd. The court found that the insurance policy in force at the time of the May 10, 2010 fire did not cover debris removal, as this coverage was omitted in the 2009-2010 policy renewal. The original May 25, 2022 ruling had included this cost despite the policy exclusion, constituting a fundamental error requiring correction.
Transaction Type
Insurance Policy
Issues
- The award of €400,000 for debris removal was outside the insurance policy's coverage.
- The court did not interpret the Watchman's warranty clause in the insurance contract.
- The court failed to consider evidence regarding the value of materials destroyed by fire.
- The court did not exclude expired or fermented materials from the damages calculation.
Holdings
The Supreme Court reviewed and set aside the award of €400,000 for debris removal, determining that the insurance policy in effect at the time of the fire did not cover this cost. The court found that the inclusion of debris removal in the first contract was not renewed, leading to a fundamental error in the original decision.
Remedies
In the circumstances, we review the decision of the court given on 25th May, 2022 and set aside the award of €400,000.00 as cost of debris removal.
Legal Principles
The ruling focused on the literal interpretation of the insurance contract's terms, specifically noting that the renewed policy (20th November 2009–20th November 2010) excluded debris removal coverage. This led to the correction of the €400,000 award as a fundamental error, since the policy in force at the time of the fire on 10th May 2010 did not include debris removal as an insured interest.
Precedent Name
Thonket case
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
The court analyzed the interpretation of the Watchman's warranty clause in the insurance contract, which was held to be in force at the time of the fire. The applicant argued the majority failed to interpret this clause, impacting the coverage determination for debris removal costs.
Judge Name
- PROF. KOTEY JSC
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- OWUSU (MS.) JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
- PWAMANG JSC
- YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)
Passage Text
- In the circumstances, we review the decision of the court given on 25th May, 2022 and set aside the award of €400,000.00 as cost of debris removal.
- We have noticed, that whereas in the first contract of insurance, debris removal was one of the interests insured against, when the contract was renewed to cover the period 20th November, 2009 to 20th November, 2010, removal of debris was not stated as one of the interest insured against. As the fire occurred on 10th May, 2010, it means that at that time debris removal was not covered under the policy.
Damages / Relief Type
Set aside €400,000 award for debris removal due to policy exclusion