Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission
Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission
Insurance Contracts CP - Law Reform Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
11.09 The <strong>Commission</strong> invites submissions as to whether, in connection with life insurance, the<br />
following should also be deemed to have an insurable interest in the life policy: (a) a grandparent in<br />
relation to his or her grandchild; and (b) siblings in relation to each other. [Paragraph 2.98]<br />
Chapter 3 – Duty of Disclosure<br />
11.10 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that the pre-contractual duty of disclosure in<br />
insurance contract law should be retained, but that it should (in accordance with authoritative case law in<br />
Ireland) be restricted to facts or circumstances of which the person applying for insurance cover – the<br />
proposer – has actual knowledge; and that the duty of disclosure would not, therefore, extend to every<br />
fact or circumstance which ought to be known by him or her (constructive knowledge). The <strong>Commission</strong><br />
provisionally recommends that this modified pre-contractual duty of disclosure should apply to all<br />
insurance, other than Marine, Aviation and Transport (MAT) insurance, which would continue to be<br />
regulated in this respect by the Marine <strong>Insurance</strong> Act 1906. [Paragraph 3.22]<br />
11.11 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that legislation should continue to provide that,<br />
because the proposer possesses more relevant information than the insurer, the pre-contactual duty of<br />
disclosure should continue to be the basis on which a contract of insurance is a contract of utmost good<br />
faith. [Paragraph 3.27]<br />
11.12 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that legislation should provide that, in respect of all<br />
contracts of insurance, an insurer shall not be permitted to repudiate liability on the basis of nondisclosure<br />
of material facts of which the insured could not reasonably be expected to have had actual<br />
knowledge at the time of applying for cover. [Paragraph 3.28]<br />
11.13 The <strong>Commission</strong> proviaionally recommends that an insurer should be required to show that<br />
non-disclosure of a material fact played a part in the insurer‘s decision to enter the contract. [Paragraph<br />
3.33]<br />
11.14 The <strong>Commission</strong> invites submissions as to which of the following two definitions of ―material<br />
facts‖ should be provided for in legislation: either (a) facts which, in the circumstances, a reasonable<br />
insured would know to be highly relevant and should be disclosed; or (b) facts which, in the<br />
circumstances, a reasonable insured would know to have a decisive influence on the insurer‘s decision in<br />
accepting the risk or in setting the level of the premium (the price). [Paragraph 3.37]<br />
11.15 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that the insurer should be under a statutory duty to<br />
explain to a proposer both the nature of the duty of disclosure and the consequences of non-disclosure.<br />
[Paragraph 3.103]<br />
Chapter 4 – Pre-contractual Misrepresentation and <strong>Insurance</strong> <strong>Contracts</strong><br />
11.16 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that legislation should provide that the insurer shall<br />
ensure that any question posed in writing to the proposer is drafted in plain, intelligible language; that any<br />
such question should be specific as to the information being sought by the insurer; and that where there<br />
is doubt about the meaning of a question, it should be interpreted by reference to a standard of what is<br />
fair and reasonable. [Paragraph 4.14]<br />
11.17 The <strong>Commission</strong> provisionally recommends that if an insurer does not follow up on the failure<br />
by the proposer to answer a question, or in respect of an obviously incomplete answer, this should be<br />
regarded as a waiver by the insurer of the duty of disclosure and the duty to answer questions honestly<br />
and carefully; this would not apply where there has been fraudulent concealment by the proposer<br />
(intentional or reckless concealment). [Paragraph 4.23]<br />
11.18 The <strong>Commission</strong> invites submissions as to whether the existing duty of disclosure and/or rules<br />
on misrepresentation, intended by insurers to identify the moral hazard that an underwriter may be facing,<br />
need to be reconsidered; and in particular, in relation to convicted persons, whether there are<br />
circumstances where a conviction (other than for insurance fraud) should be exempt from the duty to<br />
disclose or the duty to answer questions carefully and truthfully. [Paragraph 4.26]<br />
222