Howells v IGI Insurance Company Ltd.

In an insurance policy covering permanent total disablement from the occupation of professional footballer, the occupation is not confined to the level or club at which the insured previously played. An undefined reference to games in a clause deeming full rehabilitation after participation in five games includes competitive professional football matches between opposing club sides, including reserve-team matches. The player’s rehabilitative purpose is immaterial. Contractual interpretation may take account of an unusually harsh result, but it does not permit the court to impose a different bargain where the policy wording, read as a whole, is clear. A clear contractual cut-off may operate despite its harsh consequences.

The claimant, a professional footballer insured under a personal accident policy, suffered a knee injury and later played eight reserve-team matches during rehabilitation. The insurer relied on claim condition 11, which provided that participation in five or more games during the relevant period conclusively deemed the insured fully rehabilitated. On an application under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24, Lloyd J dismissed the claim, holding that the provision included competitive professional reserve matches.

The appeal concerned whether games meant matches at the claimant’s former Premier League or first-team level, or excluded matches played as part of rehabilitation, and whether the harshness of the result justified that construction.

Disposition

Potter LJ delivered the principal judgment. Mummery LJ agreed, and Arden LJ agreed with both judgments. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. Scope of the insured occupation. The policy insured against permanent total disablement from the occupation stated in the schedule, namely professional footballer. The definitions referred to the ability to participate as a player for any professional sports team. They did not restrict cover to Premier League football, first-team football or a particular club.
2. Meaning of games. In claim condition 11, games meant competitive professional football matches between opposing professional club sides. The term included reserve-team matches. It did not include purely internal club games or training. A competitive reserve match remained a game for this purpose, regardless of whether it formed part of a rehabilitation programme or was intended to lead to a return to first-team football.
3. Contractual construction. The court recognised that a very unreasonable result may indicate that a construction was not intended, as discussed in Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v Schuler [1974] AC 235. The principle has limits: the court must ascertain the parties’ meaning from the words used and must not substitute a bargain it considers preferable, as explained in Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fagin [1997] AC 313. The factual background that the claimant had been a Premier League player did not justify adding a qualification to the clear policy wording.
4. Application. The participation in eight reserve-team matches exceeded the five-game threshold. Condition 11 therefore conclusively deemed the claimant fully rehabilitated and excluded payment under the policy. The harshness of the result, including the possibility that the insured might not appreciate that the condition had been triggered, did not make the clause unreasonable or alter its meaning.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 13 May 2003, the appeal from the summary judgment was dismissed with costs. [2003] EWCA Civ 3.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: On 14 October 2002, Lloyd J granted the insurer’s application under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24 and dismissed the claim.