The purpose of the 1774 Act was to prevent ‘gaming’ in the disguise of insurance and in the sense of gambling on the outcome of an uncertain event in which the ‘assured’ had no interest save for the interest created by the very gamble or agreement itself. Judges: Tyndall CJ Citations: (1832) 9 Bing 329, … Continue reading Paterson v Powell: 1832
A contract was not a life insurance policy if the same sum was payable on death as on a surrender. Citations: Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Independent 15-Sep-1994, Times 21-Jul-1994 Statutes: Life Assurance Act 1774 1 Insurance Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80703
Hebdon claimed under a policy with ILA in the sum of pounds 2500 on the life of X. Hebdon was employed in a bank of which X was the senior and managing partner. In 1855 Hebdon was employed on a seven-year contract at pounds 600 a year. He also owed the bank pounds 4700 on … Continue reading Hebdon v West: 13 Feb 1863
Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
An insurance company (Anchor) had taken out insurance with the defendant on the life of the Duke of Cambridge in the sum of pounds 1000 for which it paid a yearly premium during the life of the Duke. Anchor had itself granted policies of insurance to a Reverend Wright on the Duke’s life in a … Continue reading Dalby v The India and London Life Assurance Company: HL 9 May 1851
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq war broke out, under which the charterer could have terminated the charter as of right. The defendant … Continue reading Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’): HL 28 Mar 2007
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums advanced, saying he need not return it because the contract was for an … Continue reading Patel v Mirza: SC 20 Jul 2016
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker. Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were infirm and whose infirmity was not a consequence of their destitution, had not been excluded. Only able bodied … Continue reading Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: HL 17 Oct 2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The insurance company declined to pay out under the Act. Held: The purpose of the … Continue reading Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey: ComC 17 May 2002
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
A husband and his wife effected with an insurance association a policy whereby, in consideration of a premium of which each paid part, a sum of money was made payable upon the death of whichever of them should die first to the survivor. The wife . .
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .