Patrick Staines noe vs David Curmi noe

Court of Appeal

Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano

Judges

Anton Depasquale

Albert J. Magri

9 January, 2007

Defendant represented Citadel Insurance, an insurance agent of Le Assicurazioni d’Italia S.P.A. – Assitalia. Defendant company had issued an insurance policy in favour of plaintiff. This was a business travel insurance policy to cover employees of the Malta Stock Exchange for accidental bodily injury and medical expenses that they could incur while traveling on business in relation to the Stock Exchange.

On 11 November 1992, defendant company informed in writing the broker who had negotiated this insurance policy that Alfred Camilleri, the chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange, was going away on a business trip to Brussels, Brazil and Argentina between 12 and 30 November, 1992.

When Mr Camilleri was in Brazil, on 18 November, he was involved in an accident which led to his drowning and death. According to the above-mentioned insurance policy, it was claimed that defendant company was obliged to pay plaintiff company – the insured company – a sum of money as specified in the schedule of benefits annexed to the insurance policy in question. Plaintiffs claimed that despite them furnishing the insurance company with all the required documentation, the same company refused, without legal justification, to fulfil its obligations under the insurance policy and denied any contractual responsibilities.

Plaintiff requested the Court to declare defendant company obliged to pay damages as a result of Mr Camilleri’s death in accordance with the insurance policy drawn up by the same plaintiff company. It was also requested that the liquidation of the same amount of damages be determined in a separate court case.

Defendant company

Alfred Camilleri’s life was not covered by this insurance policy in question at the time of his decease.

Malta Stock Exchange failed to reveal material facts that affected the risk covered by the Insurance policy.

First Hall, Civil Court – 28 January, 1999

This court upheld the claims of plaintiff company and declared defendant company is obliged to pay all damages resulting from Mr Camilleri’s death, in terms of the insurance policy in question.

Mr Camilleri was meant to visit many places in Brazil, however, he had work as such only in Sao Paolo. It resulted that the accident occurred far away from this location and at the time of such accident, the deceased was with his brother and the latter’s family.

Hence, the accident effectively took place in Brazil where Camilleri had travelled on business; however, he was actually in a location where he was not carrying out any work related to the Malta Stock Exchange. He happened to be in the place where the fatal accident took place for personal reasons and not business.

It was not contested that Mr Camilleri was covered by the insurance policy. The question was whether this insurance policy was indeed effective at the time of the fatal accident.

Defendant company stated that the insurance policy covered business trips related to the Stock Exchange. At the time of the accident, Camilleri was not carrying out any work for the Stock Exchange.

The insurance policy was negotiated to be an open policy covering the Stock Exchange’s employees when travelling abroad on business. The Exchange would inform the brokers first verbally, then in writing of the identity of the individual travelling, the dates and the destinations.

The brokers did not always provide the insurance company with such details. In fact, defendant company was not informed of the trip in question leading to Mr Camilleri’s death. This having been said, there was no obligation on plaintiff company to provide neither the brokers nor defendant company with such information.

The policy was an open cover and covered all business trips of all the employees travelling on business. Before accepting to issue this insurance policy, defendant company had obtained all the information it required. There was no discussion or specific clause dealing with the situation under examination. The parties did not go into such detail. The intention seems to have been that the employees be covered by this insurance policy from the minute they left Malta till the minute they arrived back in Malta. When the policy was negotiated, the possibility of an employee incorporating other personal plans within a business trip was not contemplated. The Court stated that for this reason, so long as the trip was effectively and principally work-related, then the insurance policy was indeed applicable at all times.

Court of Appeal

The relevant part of the Policy was the following:

‘Insured journey means any time during the period of insurance whilst an insured person is travelling in connection with the insured’s business to a destination outside the insured person’s country of domicile’

and ‘Operative time of cover: Whilst on business trips only in connection with the insured’s business’

The Court of Appeal took a different approach and stated that there was nothing in the insurance policy that held that for Mr Camilleri to arrive in Sao Paolo, he was obliged to follow a particular itinerary that took the shortest time and involved the least amount of flights. The Court gave a hypothetical example: should Mr Camilleri have gone straight to Sao Paolo and died there instead in the swimming pool of the hotel, would the insurance policy have covered him? The Court answered this in the affirmative with great confidence.

The Court of Appeal for these reasons rejected the appeal and upheld the First Hall, Civil Court judgement.