subject: The Spinneys Case - The Decision [print this page] The first issue which the court was required to decide was in respect of a request made by the assureds that they should be allowed to address to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a series of questions which would include inquiry as to whether the situation in Lebanon during the period of 18-25January 1976 was, in the view of her Majesty's Government, a civil war in the normal sense of the term including the sense attributed by international law.
It was decided that this was not an appropriate case to address the Secretary of State in that the issue was not whether the events in Lebanon were recognised by the UK as a civil war in the sense in which the term was used in public international law, but whether a civil war had occurred within the meaning of the insurance policy. It was the interaction between the policy and the factual scenario which was in issue.
In the previous section we have considered the manner in which the reverse burden of proof would operate. An arguable case had to first be established by the insurers before the burden of proof moved to the assureds; although it was not necessary to establish that the acts and events constituting a state of affairs were actually happening at the time and place of the loss. A temporary lull in violence would not disentitle the insurer from relying on exception provided that there is sufficient causal connection between the state of affairs and the loss.
It was also decided that as the policy was specifically endorsed with additional cover, namely riot and malicious damage, the exclusions contained in Special Condition 6 should not be construed so widely as to take the cover away completely.
