Sun Alliance loses subsidence claim
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE APPEAL Court yesterday overturned a judgment that would have entitled Sun Alliance to recover pounds 102,813 paid to a Brighton businessman who had made a subsidence claim against the insurer.
Paul Diggens took Sun Alliance to court in 1992 claiming pounds 55,065 on top of the sum paid. He lost, and the court found that Mr Diggens had fraudulently intended to include extra work on his luxury basement in the claim.
The court said Sun Alliance was entitled to recover the money it had already paid. It granted an injunction to prevent Mr Diggens and his wife disposing of assets.
Mr Diggens, who said his marriage had broken up under the strain, appealed against the finding of fraud. His appeal was upheld yesterday.
Mike Jones, head of corporate affairs at Sun Alliance, said: 'This is an exceptional case in terms both of the amount and the circumstances in which the original subsidence claim was made. Not many houses have an underground squash court, bar, jacuzzi and changing facilities.' He said the company was disappointed by the judgment and may appeal to the House of Lords.
Each party is to pay its own costs, and the court adjourned to consider how these would be allocated. The total bill could be up to pounds 500,000.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments