판결 이유
A shareholder, even a sole shareholder, has no insurable interest in the property owned by the company because the company is a separate legal person distinct from its members. The shareholder owns shares, which represent a financial interest in the company as a going concern, but does not own any legal or equitable interest in any specific asset belonging to the company. Accordingly, a shareholder cannot validly insure company assets in their own name, and any purported insurance policy taken out in the shareholder's name in respect of company property is void for want of insurable interest. This is a direct consequence and illustration of the principle of separate corporate personality established in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
사실관계
Mr Macaura owned a timber estate in Ireland and transferred all the timber on the estate to a company called Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd, of which he was the sole shareholder and also the principal creditor (the company owed him the purchase price). After the transfer, Macaura insured the timber in his own name with various insurance companies, including the Northern Assurance Company. About a month before the action, a fire broke out and destroyed most of the timber. Macaura claimed on the insurance policies. The insurance companies refused to pay on the ground that Macaura had no insurable interest in the timber, which belonged to the company.
판결 요약
The House of Lords (Lords Buckmaster, Sumner, Wrenbury, and Carson, with Lord Atkinson concurring) held that Macaura had no insurable interest in the timber and dismissed his appeal. Lord Buckmaster gave the leading speech. He held that Macaura's interest in the company was that of shareholder and creditor. As a shareholder, he had an interest in the company's prosperity and in the dividends it might pay, but he had no legal or equitable right to any specific asset owned by the company. Since insurable interest must be an interest in the property insured, not merely an economic interest in the company which owns it, Macaura had no insurable interest in the timber itself. Lord Sumner reinforced this by observing that the entire capital of Irish Canadian Sawmills was represented by shares held by Macaura, but that this gave him no direct property interest in any of the company's assets. Lord Wrenbury similarly confirmed the principle. The case is important not only for insurance law but as a straightforward application and illustration of the Salomon principle that a company is distinct from its shareholders.
주요 인용문
"No shareholder has any right to any item of property owned by the company, for he has no legal or equitable interest therein. He is entitled to a share in the profits while the company continues to carry on business and a share in the distribution of the surplus assets when the company is wound up."
— Lord Buckmaster at 626
"He stood in no legal or equitable relation to [the timber]. He had no lien or charge on it and no contract with the company relating to it."
— Lord Sumner at 627
"The corporator even if he holds all the shares is not the corporation, and neither he nor any creditor of the company has any property legal or equitable in the assets of the corporation."
— Lord Wrenbury at 633
후속 처리
Consistently followed as the leading illustration of the Salomon principle applied in the insurance context. Applied in Covacich v Riordan [1994] (New Zealand) and cited as a standard example in all company law texts.
Distinguished in cases where a contract of insurance has been properly taken out in the company's name: the company (not the shareholders) has the insurable interest. Applied in cases involving group insurance structures where the corporate veil is properly respected.
Applied in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, where the Supreme Court cited Macaura as an example of the strict application of the Salomon principle, while distinguishing the concealment principle where assets are held on resulting trust.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Get Professional Help