Insurance Flashcards
Financial Ombudsman service
Free service with awards up to 100K
Clark v In Focus asset management
You can’t accept the ombudsman and raise any further proceedings
Harsh v Pearl Life
Makes the insurance policy null and void and illegal if there is no insurable interest at the time of inception
Cowan v Jeffrey Associates
You cannot unsure something over an asset that you do not own. Director and shareholder planning on buying premises from a company however they took out insurance interest before the purchase! The premise was destroyed however they had no insurance because they did not own the premises yet
Wainright v Bland
The assured has interest in his own life
Griffith v Fleming
You have insurable interest in the life of your spouse or civil partner
Garage v Pearl Life insurance
Adult child tried to insure his mothers life as she cooked and kept the house for him- held there was a lack of insurable interest here - no legal obligation for her to keep the house for him
Halford v Kymer
No general right for parents and children to insure each other’s lives- father tried to insure sons life- the payment was refused because of lack of II
Dalby v India & London life assurance
An II in the life of another need only exist at the time when the policy was taken out
Godsall v Bolerdo
The debtor and creditor- creditor has interest in life of debtor to the extent that he is owed
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co
Insured timber in own name, owned by company who he was a share holder of- fire damage- couldn’t claim- held: insurers not liable as timber did not belong to M and thus no II
Fehilly v GA
II of a tenner of a property is limited to the remaining value of the lease
Taylor v Allon
Temporary cover
At the time of renewal, T was contracted by the insurer asking if he still wanted the insurance policy in place- 14 day grace period- he was arrested for driving without insurance on the 15th day- his grace periods only appliednif he had renewed with the same insurer which he did not
Re Coleman Despositries
Standard terms need to be clearly incorporated- here the insurer tried to rely on a standard term regarding immediate notification of a potential claim, but that had not been incorporated
Sunfire Office v Hart
Duration/ renewal of policy
Sugarcane plantation and insurance policy for incut cane if there was a loghtning strike- 2 fires within 2 months and after paying out for those 2 the insurance company cancelled- the 3rd fire happened and it was held the insurance company had legitimately cancelled - premiums were paid back
General Accident Assurance v Chandermill Jain
Indian case where there was property insurance for a risk of flooding near river- insurance company supposedly had inside information on this and cancelled the policy- however this was legitimate- general risk must not have yet occurred and the insurerer must return premiums pro rota
Tesco v Underwriting v Auchuche
Case given in authority for proposition that insurer can avoid a policy when insured recklessly/deliberately fails to disclose a motoring conviction when making an application for insurance
If reckless or deliberate can keep premiums
Careless misrepresentation
The insurance company can reject the claim but keep the premiums
Unipac Ltd v Aegon Insurance Co UK
Two incorrect answers about length of time in business and sole occupancy at premises prevented payout after a fire
Provincial insurance Co v Morgan
Lorry of coal merchant insured under a motor policy
Basis of contract clause related that the vehicle was to be used for coal and coal only - on the day of the loss the lorry was also carrying wood
Insurers didn’t have to pay out
Law reformed aftervthis
Cox v Orion Insurance Co
If breached, a condition precedent to the insurers liability may function to prevent any claim:the liability to pay never arises
Friends Provident Life and Pensions v Sirius
A breach of mere ‘condition’ in insurance law usually only allows the insurer to claim damages for any loss the breach causes it to suffer - c of a strict on this point: no general right to repudiate for a breach of mere condition
Patrick v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society
If the loss was deliberately caused by a person other than the insured then the loss is usually claimable
Safi v Prudential Assurance Co
Policy terms may require the insured to exercise ‘reasonable care’ - theft- plaintiffs goods stolen from the car - was the plaintiff regarded to have taken all reasonable steps to safeguard property
