In Brief
An insurance company refused to pay a claim under a fire and special perils policy covering a factory damaged by armed miscreants, relying on a terrorism exclusion clause. The Supreme Court held that the exclusion clause's definition of terrorism—requiring acts committed for political, religious, ideological or similar purposes—must be applied, not external statutory definitions of terrorism. Since the evidence showed no such political or ideological purpose, merely a demand for ransom, the exclusion clause did not apply. The Court held the insurer failed to discharge its burden of proving the exclusion applied and allowed the appeal, remanding for the Commission to assess the quantum of damages.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.