Insurance - 1200- 1799

Insurance Law. Including Lloyds litigation.

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 19 May 2014. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.
Carter -v- Boehm [1746] EngR 89; (1746-1779) 1 Black W 593; (1746) 96 ER 342 (B)
1746

Insurance Casemap
1 Citers
Link[s] omitted
Randal -v- Cockran (1748) 1 Ves Sen 98
1748

Insurance
1 Citers
An insurer who has fully indemnified an insured against a loss covered by a contract of insurance between them may ordinarily enforce, in the insurer's own name, any right of recourse available to the insured.
Carter -v- Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905; [1766] EngR 13; (1766) 3 Burr 1905; (1766) 97 ER 1162 (C)
1766

Lord Mansfield CJ
Insurance Casemap

1 Citers
Lord Mansfield CJ said: "The underwriter, here, knowing the governor to be acquainted with the state of the place; knowing that he apprehended danger, and must have some ground for his apprehension; being told nothing of either; signed this policy, without asking a question. If the objection "that he was not told" is sufficient to vacate it, he took the premium knowing the policy to be void; in order to gain, if the alternative turned out one way; and to make no satisfaction, if it turned out the other: he drew the governor into a false confidence . . If he thought that omission an objection at the time, he ought not to have signed the policy with a secret reserve in his own mind to make it void; if he dispensed with the information, and did not think this silence an objection then; he cannot take it up now, after the event." and
"There are many matters as to which the insured may be innocently silent. He need not mention what the underwriter knows: what way soever he came to the knowledge. The insured need not mention what the underwriter ought to know: what he takes upon himself the knowledge of: or what he waives being informed of...and either party may be innocently silent as to grounds open to both to exercise their judgment upon."
There may be circumstances in which an insurer, by asserting a right to avoid for non-disclosure, would himself be guilty of want of good faith.
[ Commonlii ]
Tyrie -v- Fletcher (1777) 2 Coup. 666
1777

Insurance, Scotland
It is a fundamental principle of a contract of insurance that, if the insurers had commenced to bear the risk concerned, for however short a time, the premium paid is not returnable.
L Cras -v- Hughes (1782) 3 Doug KB 81; 99 ER 549
1782

Insurance Casemap

Two Spanish register ships had been captured by a squadron of ships of war assisted by men at arms.
London Assurance Company -v- Sainsbury (1783) 3 Dougl 246
1783

Insurance Casemap
1 Citers
Grove And Another, Assignees of Liotard, A Bankrupt, -v- Dubois; 31-Jan-1786
Reed -v- Royal Exchange Assurance Co (1795) Peake (Add Cas) 70; (1795) 170 ER 198
1795

Insurance Casemap

A wife is presumed to have an insurable interest in the life of her husband.