Killick & Ors v Rendall

Where insurance cover depends on the purpose of a journey, the court must identify its primary purpose or essential character, considering the journey as a whole. A material business purpose is insufficient if it is merely incidental or subsidiary to a non-business purpose. Where two purposes are equally or nearly equally important, the journey may have a dual character and will fall within cover if one purpose is insured, unless the other is expressly excluded. Each traveller’s purpose must be assessed separately.

The personal representatives of Matthew Harding and Anthony Burridge claimed under a Lloyd’s personal accident policy after both died in a helicopter accident. The journey included a visit connected with Benfield’s sponsorship of the Virgin Global Challenge and attendance at a Chelsea football match in Bolton. Mr Justice Tuckey held that the football purpose was primary and dismissed both claims. The appeals concerned whether either deceased was travelling on behalf of Benfield under the policy’s United Kingdom travel extension.

1. The appeals were determined separately. Mr Harding’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. Mr Burridge’s appeal was allowed by a majority.
2. The policy covered journeys undertaken on the Assured’s behalf, with cover operating on a door-to-door basis. The journey therefore had to be assessed as a whole and could not be divided into insured and uninsured sections.
3. Following Seddon v Binnions [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381, the correct approach was to identify the journey’s primary purpose or essential character. A purpose could be material without being sufficient to bring the journey within cover if it was merely incidental or subsidiary.
4. A journey could nevertheless have two equivalent or nearly equivalent purposes. In that event it had a dual character, and cover applied if one purpose was on behalf of Benfield, unless the other purpose was expressly excluded.
5. Mr Harding’s primary purpose was attendance at the football match. The Oswestry business visit and possible business with Warburtons were substantial but incidental and subordinate. His estate was therefore not entitled to recover.
6. For Mr Burridge, the business purpose was at least equivalent to the social purpose. His possible personal or career motives did not prevent the journey from being undertaken on behalf of his employer. His estate was entitled to judgment for £500,000 plus interest.
7. Lord Justice Thorpe dissented on the application of the test to Mr Burridge, considering the social purpose predominant. Costs followed the result, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Justice Tuckey dismissed both claims in the High Court Commercial Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Harding’s estate’s appeal and allowed Mr Burridge’s estate’s appeal by a majority.