KWEKU Y. PAINTSIL, ESQ (PLAINTIFF) vs. DONEWELL INSURANCE CO LTD. (DEFENDANT) [2016]DLHC7221

Date	2016-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 160/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7221

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO J

BASILIA ADJEI TAWIAH FOR LAWRENCE ASANTE AHENKORAH - FOR THE PLAINTIFF

PRESENT DANIEL KOOMSON - FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC7221
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">SUIT NO. GJ 160/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 28TH NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

BASILIA ADJEI TAWIAH FOR LAWRENCE ASANTE AHENKORAH - FOR THE
PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

PRESENT DANIEL KOOMSON - FOR THE DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO,J<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Law of Interpretation –Interpretation of Documents-
Insurance policy – Whether the
defendant <o:p></o:p>was contractually liable to provide cover for the Plaintiff – It
is generally accepted in interpreting insurance policies provisions granting
coverage are to be construed broadly while exclusionary clauses are to be given
their ordinary meaning and where ambiguity arise interpreted in favour of the
insured <o:p></o:p>Introduction: <o:p></o:p>[1] This is a dispute between an insured and his insurer concerning
re-imbursement for the cost of repairs incurred by the insured because of
damage to his vehicle which occurred at the workshop of a third party. The
insurer takes the position that a contractual relationship was established
between the insured and the owners of the workshop when he took his vehicle
there for repairs and therefore the insured is absolved from any claim of
liability arising out of the repairs of the vehicle. <o:p></o:p>[2] The analysis of this issue requires an examination of the terms of
the policy, the principles applicable to contractual liability and the
governing authorities if any. I will begin with some brief background. <o:p></o:p>The Facts <o:p></o:p>[3] On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff took a comprehensive motor
insurance for his Mercedes Benz R320 CDI 2007 with registration number GE
8978-14 with the Defendant Company. The policy was renewed from the initial
date until January 6, 2016. During the pendency of the policy on June 3, 2015
there was a heavy downpour in Accra which flooded many parts of the city
resulting in loss of life and property. On the day of the flooding, the
Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked at the workshop of Premier Technic for what the
Plaintiff calls a “routine maintenance checks”. Premier Technic was a casualty
of the flood and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged as a result, causing it to
be completely inoperable. The Plaintiff says he spent the sum of GH¢25,000 to render the vehicle serviceable.
<o:p></o:p>[4] The Plaintiff made a claim under the policy No. KADMPP 0029291400
for the amount spent. It is the case of the Plaintiff that under the policy,
the Defendant agreed to indemnify the Plaintiff in the sum not exceeding GH¢99,000.00 for the loss of or damage
to the car. The Defendant denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff
was not entitled to the claim because at the material time of the flooding, the
car was in the custody of Premier Technic because there was a “contractual
relationship” with the Plaintiff and Premier Technic for the maintenance/repair
of the car. <o:p></o:p>