Heesens Yacht Builders BV v Cox Syndicate Management Ltd. & Anor

Decision date: 6 April 2006

Neutral citation: [2006] EWCA Civ 384

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Insurance classification confidence: high

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary, or obiter dicta summary on this page is AI-generated. It is provided solely to help users assess possible relevance and may be inaccurate or incomplete. It is not legal advice. Users should read the original judgment and obtain appropriate legal advice before relying on any summary.

Short overview

A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this overview: medium

This dispute concerned whether a Builders Risk/Guarantee Risks insurance policy covered a yacht (Red Sapphire) that was delivered during the policy period but whose construction had begun before the policy began. The Court of Appeal held the guarantee cover applied only to vessels "as per building risks policy," meaning vessels on which construction had started within the insured period, so the Red Sapphire was not covered and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio decidendi

The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.

AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium

The policy phrase "Per: Vessels, yachts as per building risks policy" must be given its natural meaning: guarantee risks attach only to vessels whose construction (risk attachment) began within the insured period, so a vessel delivered during the policy period but whose construction commenced earlier is not covered.

Obiter dicta

Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.

AI confidence in this obiter summary: low

No clear obiter dicta can safely be identified from the judgment.

Warning

The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted, which may limit access to some detailed reasoning or ancillary findings.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML