The appellant insurer argued on appeal that a 1989 letter did not create a binding agreement and, alternatively, that the respondent's claim was out of time after the insurer indicated in 1991 it would no longer be bound.
The court held the trial judge properly relied not only on the letter itself but also on the agent's cross-examination evidence acknowledging an agreement.
The court further held that the 1991 letter constituted repudiation, but because the respondent did not accept that repudiation, the contract remained in force and the respondent was not required to commence proceedings by the date asserted by the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
