Facts
Company X. AG, a wholesale business in precious stones, took out an insurance policy with Lloyd's Underwriters to cover its stocks against various risks, including theft. The proposal form used was in English and had not been approved by the supervisory authority. The company answered a question about the minimum number of employees present in the premises during working hours, indicating a number of 5 people. However, at the time of the theft, only two people were present in the premises.
The insurers refused to pay the insurance indemnity, arguing that the company had breached a contractual obligation by not maintaining the minimum number of employees present in the premises and that this had aggravated the risk. The company contested this decision and brought a lawsuit.
Considerations
Interpretation of the contractual clause
The contractual clause in question provides that the insurer is not liable for damage resulting from the suppression or modification of the security measures described by the policyholder in the proposal form. However, the Court considered that the company's answer to the question about the minimum number of employees present in the premises did not constitute a security measure within the meaning of this clause.
Aggravation of the risk
The Court also examined whether the company had aggravated the risk by not maintaining the minimum number of employees present in the premises. However, it considered that the company's answer to the…