Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Pg No. Economides v Commercial Union Insurance Ltd Fagan v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Plc [1997] 3 All ER 636 Eng 61 HC Unrep. 19 Feb 1993 Irl 167 Fargnoli V GA Bonus plc [1997] CLC 653 UK 172 Farrell v South East Lancashire Insurance Co Feasey v Sun Life Assurance of Canada Glengate-KG Properties Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1933] IR 297 Irl 103 [2003] EWCA Civ 885 UK 41 [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 614 UK 31 Harney v Century Insurance [1983] IEHC 16 Irl 62 Hartford Protection Insurance Co v Harmes Highlands Insurance v Continental Insurance HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire Insurance Co Holt's Motors Ltd v South East Lancashire Insurance Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programs Ltd Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (1853) 2 Ohio St 452 US 57 [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 109 UK 94 [2001] EWCA (Civ) 735 UK 105 (1930) 35 Com. Cas 281 UK 86 [1988] 1 All ER 348 UK 131 [1998] 1 All ER 98 UK 85 James v Royal Insurance Co (1875) 9 ILTR 194 Irl 44 Joel v Law Union Insurance Co. Johnson v Medical Defence Union Jones v Welsh Insurance Corporation Keating v New Ireland Assurance Company [1908] 2 KB 863 UK 65 [2007] EWCA Civ 262 UK 156 [1937] 4 All ER 149 UK 119 [1990] ILRM 110 Irl 58 Keenan v Shield Insurance Co [1987] IR 113 Irl 105 Kelleher v Cristopherson (1957) 91 ILTR 191 Irl 119 Lambert v Co-operative Insurance [1975] 1 Lloyd's Rep 169 UK 3 Leen v Hall (1923) 16 2 ILR 100 Irl 66 Locker & Woolf Ltd v Western [1936] 1 KB 408 UK 65 xviii
Australian Insurance Co Pg No. London Assurance v Mansel (1879) 11 Ch 363 UK 64 Lucena v Craufurd (1808) 1 Taut 325 UK 25 Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd Mackay v London General Insurance Co Manifest Shipping Co. Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co. Ltd (The Star Sea) Manor Park Homebuilders Ltd v AIG Europe (Ireland) Ltd Mark Rowlands Ltd v Berni Inns [1925] AC 619 UK 27 (1935) 51 LI.LR 201 UK 111 [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 360 (CA) UK 163 [2009] 1 ILRM 190 Irl 109 [1986] QB 211 UK 32 Mayne Nickless Ltd v Pegler [1974] 1 NSWLR 228 Aus 63 McAleenan v AIG (Europe) Ltd [2010] IEHC 128 Irl 97 McGeown v Direct Travel Insurance Meisels v Norwich Union Insurance Ltd [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 609 UK 85 [2007] 1 All ER 1138 Eng 65 Moran, Galloway & Co v Uzielli [1905] 2 KB 555 UK 27 New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd v Harris Odyssey Cinemas Ltd v Village Theatres Three Ltd Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co. Ltd Parsons v Falmers Mutual Insurance Association Petrofina (UK) v Magnaload Ltd [1990] 1 NZLR 10 NZ 121 [2010] NI Ch 1 NI 95 [1994] 3 All ER 581 UK 62 [1972] NZLR 966 NZ 120 [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 91 UK 31 Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 157 UK 70 PJ Carrigan Ltd and Carrigan v Norwich Union Fire Society Ltd High Court 11 December 1987 Irl 35 Re Application of Butler [1970] IR 45 Irl 105 Re Sweeney & Kennedy's Arbitration [1986] ILRM 419 Irl 85 Regina Fur Co v Bossom [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep 425 UK 65 Roberts v Avon Insurance Co [1956] 2 Lloyd's Rep 240 UK 69 Rohan Construction Ltd v Insurance Corporation of [1986] ILRM 419 Irl 85 xix
Page 1 and 2: CONSULTATION PAPER INSURANCE CONTRA
Page 3 and 4: MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commissio
Page 5 and 6: ADMINISTRATION STAFF Head of Admini
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission wou
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Key Legi
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 4 (3) Factors covered by an
Page 13 and 14: (10)Enforcement 149 CHAPTER 7 FORMA
Page 15: TABLE OF KEY LEGISLATION Assurance
Page 20 and 21: Ireland Ltd Pg No. Roselodge Ltd v
Page 22 and 23: D Regulation and Supervision of Ins
Page 24 and 25: has been the Consumer Protection Co
Page 26 and 27: this definition would apply both to
Page 28 and 29: Commission provisionally recommends
Page 30 and 31: 2005 Final Report and Recommendatio
Page 32 and 33: in Coleman accords with data protec
Page 34 and 35: functions may in the future be merg
Page 36 and 37: estrictions on the ability of the O
Page 38 and 39: (2) Adverse comments on the propose
Page 40 and 41: harmonisation of insurance contract
Page 42 and 43: 1.49 Before leaving the general iss
Page 44 and 45: (2) Decisions of the Financial Serv
Page 46 and 47: uberrima fidei, regulatory requirem
Page 48 and 49: 1.68 The Commission provisionally r
Page 50 and 51: 2.03 In contrast, a non-indemnity
Page 52 and 53: CJ expressed the view that it made
Page 54 and 55: 2.18 In the House of Lords, Lord El
Page 56 and 57: Lord Eldon formulation, 45 overrule
Page 58 and 59: interest in respect of the property
Page 60 and 61: drawings themselves, Auld LJ and Si
Page 62 and 63: the judges to complicate the law by
Page 64 and 65: Insurance in the UK, Ireland and EU
Page 66 and 67: any existing doubt, or prevailing m
Page 68 and 69:
(2) A potential financial loss reco
Page 70 and 71:
to the extent of monies actually ex
Page 72 and 73:
took out a life insurance policy on
Page 74 and 75:
2.86 The Commission invites submiss
Page 76 and 77:
and social provision be integrated
Page 78 and 79:
and deny enforceability. The leadin
Page 80 and 81:
(6) Defining Insurance Contracts in
Page 83 and 84:
3 CHAPTER 3 DUTY OF DISCLOSURE A In
Page 85 and 86:
the Ohio case of Hartford Protectio
Page 87 and 88:
the basis that the insurance contra
Page 89 and 90:
that which the signatory could reas
Page 91 and 92:
―(i) In order to be entitled to a
Page 93 and 94:
withholding information on the basi
Page 95 and 96:
public interest in running blockade
Page 97 and 98:
In Manor Park, McMahon J. took a si
Page 99 and 100:
at the precontractual stage. The de
Page 101 and 102:
decisions in which the Ombudsman ha
Page 103 and 104:
(8) The English Law Commission’s
Page 105 and 106:
(10) Australia 3.88 In ALRC Report
Page 107 and 108:
Article 3:103 Exceptions The sancti
Page 109:
it is desirable to retain the duty;
Page 112 and 113:
B Judicial approaches to limiting a
Page 114 and 115:
will no doubt arise in the future.
Page 116 and 117:
questions that are incapable of a y
Page 118 and 119:
(1) Marine Insurance Act 1906 and m
Page 120 and 121:
(3) Should the right to rescind be
Page 122 and 123:
y English judges to any extent, and
Page 124 and 125:
non-disclosure or misrepresentation
Page 126 and 127:
Factually incorrect answers to a qu
Page 128 and 129:
4.68 While the English and Scottish
Page 130 and 131:
terms to be construed by reference
Page 132 and 133:
conclusion, ―with considerable re
Page 134 and 135:
the present was held not to be prom
Page 136 and 137:
(10) Limiting the scope of the warr
Page 138 and 139:
have been forthright in suggesting
Page 140 and 141:
nature and potentially draconian na
Page 142 and 143:
(b) that even though the loss was o
Page 144 and 145:
whichever is the earlier event. 103
Page 146 and 147:
5.67 Nevertheless, the law reports
Page 148 and 149:
may properly consider to be relevan
Page 150 and 151:
―It is easy to sympathise with th
Page 152 and 153:
decisions, and case-law, that preve
Page 154 and 155:
the terms of the insurance contract
Page 156 and 157:
householder each assuming the other
Page 158 and 159:
whether in all the circumstances it
Page 160 and 161:
may be regarded as technical or unm
Page 162 and 163:
―Basis of contract clauses would
Page 164 and 165:
The court may be influenced by the
Page 166 and 167:
―consumer‘s reasonable expectat
Page 168 and 169:
of the term, particularly in the co
Page 170 and 171:
National Consumer Agency would be t
Page 172 and 173:
premium, thus taking the contract o
Page 174 and 175:
the Provider could not provide the
Page 176 and 177:
exceptions to these requirements in
Page 178 and 179:
(l) the existence of guarantee fund
Page 180 and 181:
policy should be issued within fift
Page 182 and 183:
contains interesting and helpful ad
Page 184 and 185:
in the Aro Road case who wrote that
Page 186 and 187:
8.11 The most visible demonstration
Page 188 and 189:
common law position relating to sep
Page 190 and 191:
F Effects of fraud 8.27 Once the fr
Page 192 and 193:
8.36 In the case of composite insur
Page 194 and 195:
(i) consented to the act or omissio
Page 196 and 197:
Insurance Corporation of the Channe
Page 198 and 199:
not only an economic purpose, but a
Page 200 and 201:
Article 6:104 Time of Performance (
Page 202 and 203:
B The Problem in Context 9.04 The d
Page 204 and 205:
D Exceptions to the Privity Rule (1
Page 206 and 207:
9.20 Because Ireland has not adopte
Page 208 and 209:
cover but the defendants failed to
Page 210 and 211:
(1) ―Where a person who is not pa
Page 212 and 213:
9.46 The privity doctrine confines
Page 215 and 216:
CHAPTER 10 REMEDIES A Introduction
Page 217 and 218:
(4) Where the risk would have been
Page 219 and 220:
isks‖ policy provided by Royal an
Page 221 and 222:
elation to negligent misrepresentat
Page 223 and 224:
insurer is seeking to avoid the con
Page 225 and 226:
10.38 The decision of Hirst J in Th
Page 227 and 228:
10.48 The Ontario Court of Appeal,
Page 229 and 230:
(a) An insurer cancelled a motor in
Page 231 and 232:
G Subrogation - Public Policy Excep
Page 233 and 234:
(ii) Subrogation - Employee Liabili
Page 235 and 236:
Employee‟s Liability (Indemnifica
Page 237 and 238:
―an employer should be liable to
Page 239:
Street Dublin against the embezzlem
Page 242 and 243:
11.09 The Commission invites submis
Page 244 and 245:
of a promissory warranty, it should
show all

Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?