Insurance excess clause applied to each embezzlement separately, and aggregated loss treatment was rejected as contrary to the policy.

An insurance policy excess clause referring to "each and every loss" had to be applied to each distinct act of embezzlement, because the contract could not be rewritten and distinct losses could not be aggregated unless the policy expressly allowed it. Reading the excess clause with the schedule, the Court held that the insured's contribution applied separately to every loss under the relevant contingency, and the omission of the phrase in one part did not justify treating successive embezzlements as a single composite claim. The arbitrator's award, which aggregated the losses and applied the excess only once, was contrary to the policy and disclosed an error on the face of the award; it was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the excess clause of the bankers' indemnity policy, losses caused by successive acts of embezzlement by one employee had to be aggregated for fixing the insured's contribution, or whether each act of embezzlement constituted a separate claim requiring the excess to be applied individually.

Analysis: The policy had to be construed according to its express terms, as insurance contracts cannot be rewritten by the Court. The excess clause, read with the schedule, showed that the insured was required to bear 25% of the amount of the loss or the stipulated excess, whichever was higher, in respect of each and every loss under the relevant contingency. The structure of the clause and the use of the schedule made it clear that the omission of the words "each and every loss" in one part did not permit aggregation of distinct acts of embezzlement into a single composite claim. Each embezzlement gave rise to a separate loss, and the award of the arbitrator, which aggregated the amounts and applied the excess only once to the total, was contrary to the contract and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the award.

Conclusion: The excess clause had to be applied separately to each embezzlement, not on aggregation of losses, and the arbitrator's award was rightly set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An insurance excess clause governing "each and every loss" must be applied to each distinct loss or claim as arising under the policy, and separate acts of embezzlement cannot be aggregated to reduce the insured's burden unless the contract expressly permits such aggregation.

---