A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ dissenting) It was a matter for construction of the policy. Though there was no evidence as to the circumstances of the taking out of policy, the death benefit was intended by the parties to be payable to the survivor of either them; it was to be for the exclusive benefit of the survivor, and was intended to enable the survivor to deal with the financial consequences of the death of the other. If the policy was joint then under the 1975 Act the court had a discretion to make provision from it for the child.
Thomas LJ said: ‘Next the question arises as to whether it was likely that the parties would have intended to include within a policy a terminal illness benefit that was owed to them jointly and a death benefit that was not. It might at first sight be thought surprising that that would be the case, but on consideration, I do not think so. The benefit payable on terminal illness would be needed by both of the policy holders to defray the cost of that illness; in contradistinction, the benefit on death would only be required by the survivor. On analysis, therefore, the purpose of the benefits was different and different treatment within a composite policy accorded with the obvious intention attributed to the parties in respect of the different nature of the benefits.’
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Pill , Lord Justice ThomasLord Justice Thomas
[2003] EWCA (Civ) 1862, [2004] 1 FCR 1
Bailii
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 9(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v Midland Bank CA 1940
Three parties were named as the insured under a fire policy, a company occupying the insured premises, the freeholders of the premises and the bank who had a floating charge over the property of the occupiers. A question arose as to the nature of . .
Cited – Reed v Royal Exchange Assurance Co 1795
A wife is presumed to have an insurable interest in the life of her husband. . .
Cited – Griffiths v Fleming CA 4-Mar-1909
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 . .
Cited – Lea v Hinton 1854
One person may have an insurable interest not only in his own life, but also in the life of another. . .
Cited – Branford v Saunders 1877
One person may have an insurable interest in the life of another. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lim and Others v Walia ChD 26-Sep-2012
The court was asked: ‘where the proceeds of a fixed term joint life policy are paid over as the result of the death of the first of the joint lives insured, but in circumstances where it is to be assumed that the payment of the sum insured might . .
Cited – Lim (An Infant) v Walia CA 29-Jul-2014
lim_walia1407
The parties disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. Immediately before her death, the deceased had, because of her medical condition, a vested right to bring forward an insurance benefit, but that right had ceased upon her death. The court had found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.188899
