22.12.2012 Views

Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission

Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission

Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PART 6: WARRANTIES IN OTHER<br />

JURISDICTIONS<br />

6.1 The notion of a warranty that has the effect prescribed by the Marine <strong>Insurance</strong><br />

Act 1906 is unique to the common law. Many civil lawyers express astonishment<br />

at the idea that insurers can avoid liability for trivial breaches of obligations, even<br />

if the breach has been remedied or is unconnected with the loss. However,<br />

Australia, New Zealand and Canada built their insurance law on English common<br />

law principles, as set out in the Marine <strong>Insurance</strong> Act and its Commonwealth<br />

variants.<br />

6.2 Below we begin by considering Australia and New Zealand. Both have attempted<br />

to correct the perceived defects in the law by legislation, and there are direct<br />

lessons to be learnt from their experience. We then look briefly at Canada, where<br />

the task of mitigating the harshness of the law has been left to the courts. In the<br />

USA, insurance law is largely a matter for each state. Some, such as Texas,<br />

have introduced legislation to require a causal connection between the breach<br />

and the loss. We conclude with a short comparison with the civil law approach.<br />

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND<br />

6.3 Both Australia and New Zealand faced similar problems to the UK. They started<br />

with the same common law principles, and both reformed their law by statute<br />

within five years of the <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>’s 1980 report. New Zealand passed the<br />

<strong>Insurance</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Reform Act in 1977; Australia passed the <strong>Insurance</strong> <strong>Contract</strong>s Act<br />

in 1984. To some extent the various reforms influenced each other: the <strong>Law</strong><br />

<strong>Commission</strong>’s working paper refers to the New Zealand reform, while the<br />

Australian <strong>Law</strong> Reform <strong>Commission</strong>’s 1982 report discusses the English <strong>Law</strong><br />

<strong>Commission</strong>’s recommendations in depth. The <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>’s draft bill, the<br />

New Zealand Act and the Australian Act approach the same issues in slightly<br />

different ways, and therefore provide interesting commentaries on each other.<br />

6.4 We look first at provisions to abolish basis of the contract clauses and then at the<br />

need for a causal connection between the breach of warranty and the loss.<br />

Finally we consider procedural requirements to bring terms to the notice of the<br />

insured.<br />

Abolishing basis of the contract clauses<br />

New Zealand<br />

6.5 The <strong>Insurance</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Reform Act 1977 prevents insurers from using basis of the<br />

contract clauses to avoid liability for non-material representations made in<br />

proposal forms or other pre-contractual documentation.<br />

6.6 Different rules apply to life insurance and other types of insurance, with the life<br />

insurance rules offering the insured greater protection. For general insurance, the<br />

insurer may avoid at any time, but only for representations that are substantially<br />

incorrect and material. For life policies, there is an additional requirement that,<br />

unless the misrepresentation is made fraudulently, the insurer can only avoid in<br />

the first three years.<br />

45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!