INSURANCE LAW — Relocation of Insured Property — Sanction Requirement — Notification Insufficient Without Endorsement
Principle Statement
The words of clause 8(C) of exhibit C are so clear and unambiguous that they require no interpretation at all... what is relevant and very material is not the receipt of the letter of notification, exhibit D, but the sanction of the cross appellant endorsed on the policy approving or consenting to the relocation of the insured goods from the place where the insured was localised by the terms of the contract to another location outside the locality accepted by the cross appellant in the contract.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Yadis Nig Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Co. Ltd (2007) NLC-123-333-2001(SC) at pp. 24–25; Paras E–A.
"The words of clause 8(C) of exhibit C are so clear and unambiguous that they require no interpretation at all... what is relevant and very material is not the receipt of the letter of notification, exhibit D, but the sanction of the cross appellant endorsed on the policy approving or consenting to the relocation of the insured goods from the place where the insured was localised by the terms of the contract to another location outside the locality accepted by the cross appellant in the contract."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that notification of relocation is insufficient without the insurer’s sanction endorsed on the policy. Mere receipt of notification does not constitute approval. The insurer must formally endorse the policy to consent to relocation. The principle applies where insurance policies require prior sanction for relocation. It ensures that insurers are not bound by unilateral changes by the insured. The principle reflects the strict compliance required in insurance contracts. It applies where policy clauses clearly require endorsement. The insured must obtain formal approval before relocation to maintain coverage.
