The leading case that explained the duty of disclosure in insurance contracts.
1 of 19
Cassellain v. Preston (1883)
This defined the financial interest a person has in the subject-matter of the insurance, the importance of the principle of indemnity and was the leading case concerning indemnity and subrogation
2 of 19
Currie v. Misa (1875)
This defined consideration in an insurance contract as "Some right, interest, profit or benefit accuring to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsbility given, suffered or undertaken by the other"
3 of 19
Dalby v. The India and London Life Assurance Company (1854)
This said that for life insurance there does not need to be valid insurable interest at the time of a claim
4 of 19
Gloystarne & Co Ltd v. Mr G S Martin (2000)
This gives a useful summary of how apparent authority for an agent arises
5 of 19
Household Fire Insurance Co v. Grant (1879)
This says that where the post is the method of communication when taking out a contract the acceptance is complete at the when the letter of acceptance is posted even if the letter is delayed, or is lost or destroyed and never reaches the offeror
6 of 19
Hyde v. Wrench (1840)
This states that during contract discussions a counter-offer operates as a rejection of the original offer
7 of 19
Kettlewell v. Refuge Assurance Company (1909)
This states that misleading an insured about policy cover is a breach of utmost good faith
8 of 19
Leyland Shipping v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society (1918)
In this case Lord Shaw stated that "causation is not a chain but a net" he went on to describe proximate cause as "proximate in efficiency"
9 of 19
Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Ltd (1957)
As a result of this case insurers generally decided not to pursue their recovery rights against negligent fellow workers
10 of 19
Lucena v. Craufurd (1806)
This states that the expectation of acquiring insurable interest at some time in the future (however certain) may not be enough to create insurable interest in general non-marine insurances
11 of 19
Marsden v. City & County Insurance Company (1865)
A plate glass window was insured for any loss/damge unless caused by fire. Fire broke out in a neighbours property, then a mob rioted and broke the glass. It was held that the riot not the fire was the cause of the loss as the riot was not inevitable
12 of 19
North British and Mercantile v. Liverpool and London and Globe (1877)
This states that contribution only applies where the polices cover a common interest in the subject-matter i.e. the insurable interest is the same (owner, user, bailee etc)
13 of 19
Oei v. Foster (1982)
This case showed the importance of checking the precise wording of exclusions to establish the way in which the proximate cause of a loss is dealt with
14 of 19
Pawsey v. Scottish Union and National (1907)
This states that "Proximate cause means the active, efficent cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result, without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source"
15 of 19
Roselodge v. Castle (1966)
This case examines the nature of moral hazard (personal history) in the context of an application for insurance
16 of 19
Rozanes v. Bowen (1928)
This gives a summary of the principle of utmost good faith
17 of 19
Williams v. Baltic Assurance Association (1924)
This is about the need for actual or expected insurable interest at inception for general (non-marine) insurance. It stated that "there is no real support for the broad proposition that an interest must subsist at the time the policy is taken out
18 of 19
Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Nisbet Shipping Co.Ltd (1961)
This case shows that insurers are not entitled to recover more than they have paid out in keeping with the principle of indemnity
19 of 19
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Cassellain v. Preston (1883)
Back
This defined the financial interest a person has in the subject-matter of the insurance, the importance of the principle of indemnity and was the leading case concerning indemnity and subrogation
Card 3
Front
Currie v. Misa (1875)
Back
Card 4
Front
Dalby v. The India and London Life Assurance Company (1854)
Comments
No comments have yet been made