Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission

householder each assuming the other would undertake this job. The householder was admitted
to hospital for long term treatment, during which time the patio door was forced open. The
insurer had taken no steps to highlight the warranty, nor was an IS 199 standard provided.
Nevertheless, the warranty was enforceable. 161
less surprising is a decision 162 of the Financial Services Ombudsman who rejected a claim on a
motor policy, the insured being required to keep the vehicle ―in an efficient and roadworthy
condition‖. The vehicle was damaged when it skidded on icy roads. An independent engineer‘s
report found that two bald tyres on the rear wheels were the proximate cause of the accident.
5.97 It is certainly arguable that whatever the status of the IIF Codes of Practice, good insurers do
not appear to use the promissory warranty to reject claims unrelated to the loss. If this is the case, there
seems to be no reason why the industry should object to legislation which removes from Irish law an
argument that is rooted in the worst excesses of a bygone age.
5.98 The Commission provisionally recommends that legislation should provide that promissory
warranties must be drafted in plain, intelligible language; and that where there is a doubt about the
meaning of a promissory warranty, it should be reviewed in terms of whether it is an unfair term within the
meaning of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995.
161
162
Case Study 88.
Case 19, December 2007.
136