The High Court has refused an application by three insurers to have a dispute over cover for The Golf Hotel in Ballybunion heard in England. It also dismissed the hotel company’s request for an interim order requiring the insurers to provide policy documentation.
Lartigue Enterprises Limited, which operates the hotel, says its building was insured on a full perils basis from late September 2010. The insurers say the cover was limited to fire, lightning, explosion and aircraft damage, known as FLEA cover. The company claims water damage caused by a burst pipe on 26 December 2010. The judgment did not decide what cover had been agreed or whether the loss was covered.
The insurers argued that the agreement required disputes to be heard in England and sought to have the Irish proceedings stayed pending resolution there. The company relied on provisions allowing an insured to sue in the courts where it is domiciled under the EU Brussels Regulation.
Justice Laffoy said the parties agreed that an insurance contract existed, but disputed its terms. The central jurisdiction question was whether they had clearly and precisely agreed to give exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. The evidence included a “Slip” prepared by placing broker CityNet and signed by a Gravity representative, and an “Evidence of Cover” document, both of which referred to English law and jurisdiction. The company’s case, based on information from CityNet, was that the English references were mistakes and that the policy wording to be issued should have provided for Irish jurisdiction. No policy document was issued.
The judge noted a serious conflict between CityNet and Gravity about what they had agreed and their established practice. She concluded that the insurers had not discharged the burden of proving clear and precise agreement to English jurisdiction. She therefore refused their application to decline jurisdiction. That ruling addressed where the case could be heard; it did not resolve the insurance coverage dispute.
The company separately sought a mandatory interim order for all documents relevant to the policy, including the policy itself. Justice Laffoy said the form of policy could not be determined until the dispute over the extent of cover was resolved. Given the conflict in evidence, she was not satisfied at this stage that the company had shown a strong case for full perils cover. The court dismissed the application for interlocutory relief, leaving the underlying coverage issues for the proceedings.