Summary
A cold-storage operator claimed insurance for deteriorated potatoes, but its contemporaneous statement and temperature logs showed that the policy’s temperature threshold had not been exceeded. The Court applied the clear exclusion and rejected reliance on an isolated passage of the surveyor’s report. The exclusion was neither ambiguous nor inconsistent with the policy’s main purpose. The appeal against dismissal of the consumer complaint was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the stock-deterioration claim fell within the temperature exclusion.
- Whether the surveyor’s report or main-purpose approach justified departing from the exclusion.
Held
- The policy excluded damage where refrigeration-chamber temperature did not exceed 4.4°C. The insured’s contemporaneous statement and logs supported temperature maintenance within that range; its later contrary explanation was inconsistent with those records. The clear exclusion therefore applied. (¶¶ 2-12, 16)
- The surveyor’s report had to be read as a whole. Its speculative observation about possible causes of sprouting did not displace its finding that no evidence established the required temperature rise. No legitimate reason for departing from the report was shown. (¶ 11-12)
- Exceptions must be clearly stated and strictly construed, with ambiguity resolved consistently with the policy’s purpose in favour of the insured. A wide exclusion inconsistent with the main object may require reading down. Neither basis arose here: the temperature condition directly concerned the risk insured and was unambiguous. (¶ 13-16)
- The repudiation was correct under the specific policy terms. The NCDRC’s rejection of the complaint required no interference and the appeal was dismissed. (¶ 17-19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; insurer’s repudiation and NCDRC rejection of the consumer complaint upheld.