Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter
1993 English House of Lords legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation (and in particular, the quantification of that right) where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the assured later recovers damages from a third party with respect to that same loss. The case also determined that the right of subrogation is fortified by an equitable lien over the proceeds of the claim against the third party.[1][2][3]
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Full case name | (1) Lord Napier and Another v Hunter and Others (2) Lord Napier and Ettrick v R.F. Kershaw Ltd and Others |
Decided | 10 December 1992 |
Citation(s) | [1993] AC 713 [1993] 2 WLR 42 [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 197 [1993] 1 All ER 385 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 10 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Templeman Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Slynn of Hadley |
Case opinions | |
Lord Templeman Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Browne-Wilkinson | |
Keywords | |
|
Despite being recorded as the representative name for the syndicate in the litigation, Lord Napier was not actually insured by the stop loss insurers, and so was not affected by the judgment.[4]