Brady V INIC 1986

Question 1

Warranty in terms of insurance contract

Answer 1

Term in insurance policy where insured vouches statement of fact is true/promises to obey conditions
Breach allows repudiation or avoid contract (MIA 1906)
Undercuts materiality debate (can repudiate if material or not)

Question 2

Warranties in materiality debate

Answer 2

Undercuts

Repudiation for breach whether material or not

Question 3

Two types of warranties

Answer 3

Promissory warranty

Warranty of fact

Question 4

Promissory warranty

Answer 4

Promise that insured will behave in a particular way

Contract ends when warranty is breached

Question 5

Promissory warranty case

Answer 5

Good luck case

Question 6

Warranty of fact

Answer 6

Statement of fact arrested by insured affirming facts are true
Statement made by insured on proposal form

Question 7

Common practice at end of proposal form

Answer 7

Proposer asked to warrant accuracy if all answers given
Contract is based on answers
Each answer becomes a warranty

Question 8

Materiality of info is irrelevant case

Answer 8

Keenan v Sheila ins co ltd 1987

Due to warranties, insurer could avoid contract

Question 9

What did policy cover

Answer 9

Loss of/damage to cruiser and liability to third parties

Question 10

Special warranties

Answer 10

In laid up period ship could only be used for dismantelling, fitting out, customary overhaul

Continuency promissory warranty-vessel should be maintained and seaworthy

Breach causes discharge of insurers liability

Question 11

Breach : mr tymon didn’t own boat-actions not covered under policy and he was added risk

Answer 11

Rebuttals: pleasure craft intended for pleasure of friends and family. If they are allowed enjoy surely they can have interest in maintenance

Question 12

Breach:mr tymons use didn’t help customary overhaul

Answer 12

Rebuttal: he fixed sink and put new hoses in it

Customary overhaul

Question 13

Breach:wasn’t overhauling in second instance when explosion happened

Answer 13

Rebuttal: customary overhaul=ambiguous

Details are not clarified, contrapreferenfum rule judges in favor of insured

Question 14

Can INIC argue Brady didn’t act with due diligence?

Answer 14

Lack of by leaving gas connection unsealed as possible danger source
Did not give express warranty or warning notice

Question 15

Brady acting in due diligence

Answer 15

Disconnected regulator
Locked boat
Attempted to contact mr tymon
No foreseeable me tymon would travel alone

Question 16

INIC Artur non disclosure

Answer 16

Cooking facilities not mentioned to insurer

Question 17

Non disclosure rebuttal

Answer 17

Prudent insurer of marine policies should be familiar with common practices

Question 18

HC outcome

Answer 18

Cooking facilities in laid up period were added risk

Question 19

Sc outcome

Answer 19

Customary overhauling included common practice of cooking while vessel is laid up
No breach