![[Toyota Times] Century as a Brand, Lexus as Innovation: All the Details on Toyota's New Project!](https://businessfortnight.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Toyota-Times-Century-as-a-Brand-Lexus-as-Innovation-All-218x150.jpg "[Toyota Times] Century as a Brand, Lexus as Innovation: All the Details on Toyota's New Project!")
According to court documents stamped on January 24, 2003, Sydney Porter (the “Plaintiff”) is suing Insurance Company of the West Indies (the 1st Respondent) for alleged breach of contract. He is also suing Cayman Insurance Centre (the 2nd Respondent) for alleged negligence in its capacity as agent, advisor and broker for Insurance Company of the West Indies. The total being claimed by the Plaintiff is just over $95,000.
Based on the court filing, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent for insurance for the Plaintiff’s property around November 2014.
Regarding the property insurance contract with the 1st Respondent, some of the terms that applied to the whole policy were as follows:
(a) The company’s obligation to indemnity the Insured shall be restricted to losses arising from:
- the physical loss of a physical damage to the tangible insured property
- interruption directly caused by physical loss of or physical damage to the tangible insured property caused by peril insured under this policy
There were also terms of the policy that applied to the building and home contents.
These stated that the policy “insures loss, destruction or damage caused to the building” by a hurricane, cyclone, tornado, windstorm, or flood, howsoever caused and earthquake or volcanic eruption.
On or about January 28, 2020, the lawsuit alleges that the property was affected by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake, resulting in physical loss and damages to the tangible insured building.
The loss and damage to the building and contents were allegedly further compounded by Tropical Storm Grace in August 2021.
In both instances, the Plaintiff said notice of the incidents was given to the insurance company.
However, according to the lawsuit, the 1st Respondent asserted that the Plaintiff allegedly failed to provide notification within the 30-day of the loss as stipulated by the insurance contract.
In the circumstances, the Plaintiff alleged that the 1st Respondent breached the terms of the insurance contract for the following reasons:
- failing to honour the contract of insurance entered into on good faith
- failing to indemnify a risk provided for under the contract of insurance including physical damage to the insured building on the property and interruption directly caused by physical loss of and/or physical damage to the tangible insured property
- failing to indemnify a risk provided for under the contract of insurance including physical damage to or loss of contents of the building and interruption directly caused by physical loss of and/or physical damage to the tangible insured property
- seeking to avoid the contract by misinterpretation of the contract of insurance
- ignoring the Plaintiff’s claim despite being notified within the prescribed time
The Plaintiff also alleged that the 2nd Respondent was negligent itself or through its agents or servants for the following reasons:
- failing to provide competent worker(s)
- failing to relay notification to the 1st Respondent
- falsely indicating that notification of claim was relayed to the 1st Respondent.
The Plaintiff is now asking the court to award the Plaintiff damages to property in the amount of $95,200 and the cost of a structural report in the amount of $330.
The Plaintiff also seeks further and/or other relief as the court deems fit.
