{"id":266564,"date":"2022-05-07T10:00:06","date_gmt":"2022-05-07T04:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=266564"},"modified":"2022-05-07T07:32:55","modified_gmt":"2022-05-07T02:02:55","slug":"double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court:<\/strong> In a case relating to double insurance, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, <strong>S. Ravindra Bhat*<\/strong> and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., reversed the impugned order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which allowed the insurance claim of Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. which was repudiated by the insurer.\u00a0 The Bench opined,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201cLevi could not claim more than what it did, and not in any case, more than what it received from Allianz.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) had issued a Standard Fire &amp; Special Perils Policy (SFSP Policy) to Levi, covering Levi\u2019s stocks while in storage for the sum of Rs. 30 crores. Meanwhile, the parent company of Levi (Levi Strauss &amp; Co.) had obtained a global policy from Allianz Global Corporate &amp; Specialty (Allianz) covering stocks of all its subsidiaries, including Levi. The coverage through this stock throughout policy (STP Policy) was for $10 million in any one vessel or conveyance, and $50 million in any one location. The parent company also got another \u201call risks\u201d policy (AR Policy) issued by Allianz covering the stocks of its subsidiaries throughout the world being commercial lines policy. The limit of liability of the AR Policy was up to $ 100 million.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Repudiation of Claim<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During subsistence of all these policies, a fire broke out in one of the warehouses containing Levi\u2019s stocks. Levi claimed Rs. 12.20 crores from the insurer. However, the insurer repudiated the claim stating that it was not liable to indemnify the insured in view of the policies issued by Allianz, since Condition 4 in the SFSP Policy clearly stated that the fire policy issued by it excluded liability in respect of property covered by marine policy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The insurer\u2019s defence was that the SFSP Policy did not cover any loss or damage to the property which at the time of the happening of such loss or damage was insured, by any marine policy or policies.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Findings of NCDRC<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On a consideration of Clause 47 of the STP Policy, the NCDRC held that to the extent of the insured risk being covered by the domestic policy, coverage by the STP Policy stood excluded. Therefore, the NCDRC concluded that the loss of profit which Levi would have earned on sale of the damaged\/destroyed cost was payable to it by Allianz, whereas the loss suffered by Levi to the extent of the cost of those goods would be reimbursable under the domestic policy issued by the insurer. After noting that Levi had received $4.54 million (Rs. 19.52 crores); the claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 1.78 crores.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Was the STP Policy a Marine Policy?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Section 4 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 clarifies that a contract of marine insurance may, by its express terms, or by usage of trade, be extended so as to protect the assured against losses on inland waters or on any land risk which may be incidental to any sea voyage. Similarly, in <em>Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2006 Supp (10) SCR 140, <\/em>and <em>United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., 2007 (9) SCR 350, <\/em>it was held that warehouse risks, combined with voyage and other marine risks, are part of marine insurance policies in India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, in the instant case, the first two recitals of the STP Policy, as well as the warehouse-to-warehouse transit (Clause 6) and other stipulations clearly stated that the policy covers both marine and other risks. In fact, the STP describes itself as <strong>\u201cOpen Marine Insurance Contract\u201d. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, the Bench held that the STP Policy was a marine policy which comprehensively covered voyage, transit, transportation and warehouse perils. Even otherwise, the insurance cover clearly and unequivocally <em>included <\/em>marine perils, making it a marine cover.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Factual Analysis <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Condition 4 of the SFSP Policy, which constituted a contract between the parties, precisely contemplated a situation whereby in the event of occurrence of an insurance risk, if Levi (or someone on its behalf, like in the present case the parent company) was entitled to claim under a marine policy, the insurer was not to be held liable.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <em>Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L0vC56l\">(2014) 1 SCC 686<\/a>, it had been held that, <em>\u201cthe insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, the Bench held that on a plain and reasonable construction of Condition 4 of the SFSP policy, once it is established that Levi \u2013 or its parent company \u2013 was covered for the risk under a marine policy, (the STP Policy) and was entitled to claim under it, the appellant insurer\u2019s liability was excluded. Therefore, Condition 4 operated to exclude the insurer\u2019s liability.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Double Insurance \u2013 Overlapping policies<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticeably, as against the claim of Rs. 12.2 crores made upon the insurer, Levi ultimately received equivalent of over Rs. 19 crores from Allianz and yet kept seeking damages form the other insurer, therefore, the Bench observed,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201cWhat is in issue in this present case has been characterized as \u201cdouble insurance\u201d, i.e., where an entity seeks to cover risks for the same or similar incidents through two different &#8211; overlapping policies.\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Bench opined that a contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less and in the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance. Reliance, in this regard was placed on the Court on the opinion of Brett LJ in <em>Castettion <\/em>v <em>Preston<\/em><em>, <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/29Q7yQ5d\">(1833) 11 QBD 380<\/a>, wherein he said that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201cThe contract of insurance \u2026 is a contract of indemnity, \u2026, and this contract means that the assured, in the case of a loss \u2026, shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Conclusion <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the light of above, the Bench held that Levi could not claim more than what it did, and not in any case, more than what it received from Allianz. Its endeavour to distinguish between the STP Policy and the SFSP Policy, i.e., that the former covered loss of profits, and the latter \u2013 the value of manufactured goods; is not borne out on an interpretation of the terms of the two policies.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Since, Levi had already received substantial amounts towards the sale price of its damaged goods, over and above the manufacturing costs, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) (P) Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7JLKEWt9\">2022 SCC OnLine SC 537<\/a>, decided on 02-05-2022]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">*Judgment by: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat<\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Appellant: A.K. De, Advocate<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Respondent: Joy Basu, Senior Advocate<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: In a case relating to double insurance, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat* and Pamidighantam <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":266565,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[3755,49370,49373,49374,39194,49371,45374,49372,49375],"class_list":["post-266564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-damages","tag-double-insurance","tag-fire-cover","tag-foreign-insurance","tag-indemnity","tag-levis","tag-loss","tag-marine-insurance","tag-overlapping-policies"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: In a case relating to double insurance, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat* and Pamidighantam\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-05-07T04:30:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/\",\"name\":\"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-05-07T04:30:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim","og_description":"Supreme Court: In a case relating to double insurance, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat* and Pamidighantam","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-05-07T04:30:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/","name":"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png","datePublished":"2022-05-07T04:30:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/07\/double-insurance-overlapping-policies-right-insurance-forfeit-levis-supreme-court-judgments-india-law-legal-research-updates-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Double Insurance\u2013Overlapping policies: Grant of actual loss from one insurer will forfeit right to claim from other insurer; SC rejects Levi\u2019s\u2019 insurance claim"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Double-Insurance\u2013Overlapping-policies-Grant-of-actual-loss-from-one-insurer-will-forfeit-right-to-claim-from-other-insurer-Supreme-Court-rejects-Levis-insurance-claim.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":333008,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":0},"title":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 15, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Namrata Chandorkar*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer Protection","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":323472,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/03\/supreme-court-sets-aside-ncdrc-order-directing-united-india-insurance-claim-bridge-collapsed-2009-death-48-workmen\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":1},"title":"SC sets aside NCDRC order directing United India Insurance Co. to pay insurance claim for bridge collapsed in 2009, resulting in death of 48 workmen","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reiterated that exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly against the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the insurer of its liabilities.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Insurance claim for bridge collapsed in 2009","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Insurance-claim-for-bridge-collapsed-in-2009.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Insurance-claim-for-bridge-collapsed-in-2009.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Insurance-claim-for-bridge-collapsed-in-2009.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Insurance-claim-for-bridge-collapsed-in-2009.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296886,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/15\/mumbai-floods-2005-ncdrc-dismisses-leela-hotel-insurance-claim-rs-6-crores\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":2},"title":"[Mumbai Floods 2005] NCDRC dismisses Leela Hotel insurance claim of Rs 6 Crores","author":"Ridhi","date":"July 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe report of the surveyor can be contested by the insured for valid reasons. The insurer is required to consider the report of the surveyor appointed by it although he is not bound to accept the report in entirety.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national consumer disputes redressal commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299478,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/17\/marine-hull-insurance-policy-insured-failed-establish-warranty-class-complied-sc-upholds-ncdrc-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":3},"title":"Marine Hull Insurance Policy| Insurer not liable to reimburse loss upon Insured&#8217;s failure to comply with warranty class; SC upholds NCDRC order","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that when the defects are not intimated, and the warranty class has not been complied with, the Classification Certificate automatically becomes invalid.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"marine hull insurance policy","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/marine-hull-insurance-policy.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/marine-hull-insurance-policy.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/marine-hull-insurance-policy.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/marine-hull-insurance-policy.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258646,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/17\/a-prudent-insurer-has-to-gauge-possible-risks-insurer-cant-repudiate-mediclaim-alleging-pre-existing-illness-where-policy-was-issued-after-considering-necessary-medical-rec\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":4},"title":"\u201cA prudent insurer has to gauge possible risks\u201d; Insurer can\u2019t repudiate mediclaim alleging pre-existing illness where policy was issued after considering necessary medical records: SC","author":"Editor","date":"December 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ., held that if on the consideration of the medical report, the insurance company gets satisfied about the medical condition of the proposer and that there was no risk of pre-existing illness, and on such satisfaction it issues\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216691,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/10\/raj-hc-insurer-directed-to-first-compensate-the-claimants-and-thereafter-recover-the-same-from-the-insured-party\/","url_meta":{"origin":266564,"position":5},"title":"Raj HC | Insurer directed to first compensate the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the insured party","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: P.K. Lohra J., in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 upheld the decision of the impugned judgment and directed the insurer to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover from the insured. In the present case, the appellants\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266564\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/266565"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}