Sakshi, Banaras Hindu University.

Simmonds v. Cockell

Equivalent citations: [1920] 1 KB 843, (1920) All ER Rep. 162

England and Wales

Bench: Justice Joche.

PETITIONER

SIMMONDS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT

COCKELL

FACTS OF THE CASE.

The plaintiff’s premises were broken into and Euros 475 worth of goods were
stolen. The plaintiff and his wife were not on the premises on the day of the
theft. The insurance policy contains the clause-: “Warranted that the premises
are always occupied.” The plaintiff sued one of the underwriting members of
Lloyd‟s under a Lloyd’s policy of insurance against burglary, housebreaking
and theft

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the warranty has been broken by the plaintiff?

HOLDING
The judgement was held in the favour of the plaintiff with costs. The defendant has not
stipulated for the continuous presence of someone in the premises, which he could have done
by providing that the premises were never to be left unattended.

RATIONALE
It is a well-known principle of insurance law and other matters, that if the language of a clause drawn
by a party himself for his own protection is ambiguous it must be construed against him, and if the
words of a warranty in a policy are ambiguous, they must be construed against the underwriter who
has inserted the warranty in it for his own protection.