Law of Insurance Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Law of Insurance - Case Study Example , which is paramount to analysing the first part of the problem.4 The case of Lucena v Crauford [1806], the court held that the fact that the claimant had a factual loss was not enough to prove that he had an insurable interest in the property.5 The decision in this case may apply to our current facts scenario as Andy and Bhavinda would not have an insurable interest in the stamps since they do not belong to them; although they may suffer a factual loss of owing their friend the value of the stamps through the principles of bailment.6 Another leading case in this area is the case of Macura v Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. [1925]. In that case, Mr. Macura had taken out an insurance policy in his own name on timber which legally belonged to the company, although the company was owned and operated by him; after the timber had been destroyed by a fire and Mr. Macura tried to make a claim under his policy, the court held that he did not have an insurable interest and only the company would h ave an insurable interest in that particular timber.7 This comes from the principle that a legal company is a separate legal person from its members.8 The only way that the stamps would have been covered by the policy is if there had been provision for third-party losses; however, this is not stated within this particular facts scenario. The problem here is that UDO is refusing to pay anything, citing that the couple were significantly under-insured. They are basically citing that Andy and Bhavinda misrepresented the amount of goods that they were in possession of to be covered. In effect, the test described in the case of Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co. Ltd. [1995] should be used by the court to determine whether or not s.2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 should apply.9 The test determines that the circumstance may be material even if it does not induce a prudent underwriters decision to accept it or not and at what premium; however, if it is determined that it did not induce the contract, the insurance company cannot use it to avoid the contract.10 By applying the test to this case, the fact that Andy and Bhavinda had only indicated that the value of the contents was only 10,000 would at least have some effect on premiums charged, and therefore would most likely be determined by the court as a misrepresentation of fact as covered under s.2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, for which the remedy is rescission and the insurer would be able to rescind the contract and refuse paying out any claims, as they did in fact do as explained in our facts scenario. However, Andy may be attempt to rely on the case of Joel v Law Union and Crown Insurance Co. [1903], in which it was held that there is no need to disclose what you do not know; however, it was shown in the facts that he did know about Bhavinda storing the stamps, he had in fact just forgotten at the time he was purchasing his insurance.11 Since the fact that only 10,000 was fal sely provided