what is an insurance contract?
a contract by which one party, the insurer, in consideration of a cum of money called the premium, undertakes to pay another person called the insured, a sum of money, or its equivalent, on the happening of a specified event
basically, every contract of insurance, whatever its nature, provides for the payment of money, or its equivalent, by the insurer on the happening of a specified event:
- re-building a house which has been burnt down
formation of a contract of insurance
completed proposal form is the offer:
- the policy is the document which embodies the terms of the contract as agreed upon by the insured and the insurer
- assumed that the conditions agreed upon are those which normally appear in the company’s policy
cover note: an interim contract of insurance which provides immediate temporary protection to the person proposing to insure until completion and acceptance of the proposal
basic concepts of insurance law
insurance contracts act 1984 (cth):
- not intended to be a complete doe of insurance law
- superimposed on existing principles of common law and equity
- except to the extent that the Act either expressly or by implication limits their operation, the existing law, as well as other commonwealth and state legislation, apply to insurance contracts s7
basic concepts of insurance law
basic concepts of insurance law
insurable interest
the act provides that:
a contract of general is not void by reason only that the insured did not have an interest in the subject matter of the contract at the time the contract was entered into: s16
where an insured has suffered a pencuniary or economic loss as a result of the insured property being damaged or destroyed
- the insurer is not relieved of liablity because of the insured’s lack of an a legal or equitable interest in the property at the time of the loss: s17
basic concepts of insurance law
duty of good faith
the act recognises the basis common law principle that:
an insurance contract is a contract of the utmost good faith
in every insurance contract there is an implied term requiring each party to act with the utmost good faith towards the other in respect of any matter arising under or in relation to the contract: s13
12.120
cgu insurance ltd v amp financial planning pty ltd -> high court stated that the concept of utmost good faith is not limited to circumstances involving dishonesty
basic concepts of insurance law
duty of disclosure
duty of the insured under s21(1)(a) is:
- to disclouse what the insured knows is “matter relevant to the decision of the insurer whether to accpet the risk” (1)
an insured has a duty to disclose to the insurer, before the contract is entered into:
- every matter knwon to the isnured that a reasonable person in the circumstances could be expected to know to be relevant to deciding whether to accept the risk: s21(1)(b)
when determing whether a reasonable person could be expected to disclose a matter, regard is to be had to factors including:
- the nature and extent of the insurance cover to be provided; and
- the class of persons who would ordinarily be expected to apply for insurance cover of that kind
the insured is not required to disclose a matter:
- that diminishes the risk
- that is common knowledge
- that the insurer knows, or in the ordinary course of its business as an insurer ought to know
- where compliance with the duty of disclosure is waived by the insurer
12.330 & 12.340 (1)
majoirty of the high court in permanent trustee australia ltd v fai general insurance co ltd held this meant
- disclosure only of a matter which has bearing on the nature and extent of the risk involved
- as opposed to disclosing matters relevant to the insurer’s decision whether or not to enter into or renew the contract of insurance, which might include matters extraneous to a strict assessment of the risk and include matters of a purely commercial or emtional nature
basic concepts of insurance law
duty of disclosure
continued
the duty of disclosure under s21 does not extend to:
- any matter unknown to the insured (1)
but duty of disclosure under s21 does extend to:
- “moral hazard”
- matters concerning the honesty of the insured, including disclosure of criminal or dishonest conduct known to the insured even though there has been no conviction or charge in respect of such conduct (2)
12.360 (1) - 12.390 (2)
midaz pty ltd v peters mccarthy insurance brokers pty ltd (1)
naomi marble and granite pty ltd v fai general insurance co ltd (2)
duty of disclosure
insurer to inform insured of futy of disclosure
the insurer must, before a contract of insurance is entered into clearly inform the insured in writing of :
- the general nature and effect of the duty of disclosure; and
- that the duty applies until the proposed contract is entered into: s22(1)(a), (d)
- in some circumstances there may be a considerable time between the date of application for a policy and the date it comes into effect
duty of disclosure
statutory limitation on insured’s duty of disclosure in certain cases
the insured’s obligation of disclosure is modified in respect of eligible contracts of insurance:
- certain types of insurance contracts that are specified by regulation: s21(a)
- s21(a) is designed to improve the capacity of an insured tocomply with the duty of disclosure by requiring an insurer to ask specific questions regarding the information which the insurer needs to assess the risk in respect of a proposed contract of insurance
duty of disclosure
change in circumstances prior to renewal of contract
before each renewal of the insurance contract, the insured is under a duty to disclose any change in circumstances that increases the rick insured against: ss21(1) and 11(9)
12.430
alexander stenhouse ltd v austcan investments pty ltd 1993
duty to disclosure
remedies for non-disclosure
general insurance
where the insured’s failure to disclose was innocent:
- the insurer is not entitled (at least directly) to avoid the contract
- the liability of the insurer for a claim in such a case is reduced to the amount that would place the insurer in the same position as it would have been had the non-disclosure not occurred: s28(1), (3)
- eg: if the insurer would have charged a higher premium had the non-disclosure not occurred, it would be entitled to reduce the claim by the amount of the additional premium
duty of disclosure
remedies for non-disclosure
general insurance
fradulent non-disclosure:
in the case of a fraudulent breach of duty to disclosre, the insurer may:
- avoid the contract: s28(2); or
- reduce its liability in respect of a claim to the amount that would palce it in the position in which it would have been if the breach had not occured: s28(3)
duty of disclosure
liability of co-insureds
where two or more persons enter into an insurance contract in respect of the same subject matter, the high court has held that:
- the duty of disclosure applies to each of the co-insureds
- even if onyl one of the co-insured has been responsible for a fraudulent non-disclosure/misrepresentation, the insurer will be able to avoid the contract of insurance under s28(2)
12.440
advance (nsw) insurance agencies pty ltd v matthews
duty of disclosure
non-disclosure - life insurance
s29
where the non-disclosure does not relate to the age of the life insured:
- if the insurer would have entered into the policy even where the insured had made full disclosure, the insurer will have no remedy
- in the case of fraudulent failure to disclose, the insurer may avoid the policy
- in the case of innocent nondisclosure, if the insurer would not have entered into the contract if disclosure had occurred, the insurer may avoid the policy within 3 years after the policy was entered into
basic concepts of insurance law
innocent misrepresentation
where themisrepresentation was made innocently:
- the insurer is not entitled to avoid the contract
- the liability of the insurer is reduced to the amount that would place the insurer in the same position as it would have been had the misrepresentation not been made: s28(1) and s28(3)
where an insurer can show that it would not have entered into the contract at all had it known the true situation, then its liability under the contract will be reduced to nil: s28(3)
basic concepts of insurance law
fraudulent misrepresentation
in the case of a fraudulent misrepresentation the insurer may avoid the contract: s28(2)
alternatively, the insurer may reduce its liability in respect of a claim to the amount that would place it in the position in which it would have been if the misrepresentation had not been made: s28(3)
the court has power to disregard avoidance of a contract by an insurer as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation when it would be harsh and unfair not to do so: s31
cover notes
since a cover note is a contract of insurance, the ordinary incidents which apply during the formation of such contract, including the duty of the insured to disclose all relevant facts to the insurer, apply to the cover note
the policy and its terms
a policy of insurance, even one required by staute, is a commercial contract and should be given a businesslike interpretation
interpreting a commercial document requires attention to the language used by the parties, the commercial circumstances which the document addresses, and the object which it is intended to secure
12.600
mccann v switzerland insurance australia ltd
terms construed: contra proferentum
in the case of ambiguity, the courts will generally construe terms in the policy contra proferentum:
- that is, against the insurer who is responsible for their drafting
12.320 (1) - 12.630 (2) - 12.640 (3)
manufacturer’s mutual insurance ltd v stargift pty ltd (1)
legal & general insurance australia ltd v eather (2)
johnson v american home assurance company (3)
exclusion clasues
the policy may contain exclusion clasues which qualify the general risk covered by the policy
e.g. exclude the liability of the insurer for damage caused by certain specifed causes
12.720
the high court has stressed the importance of constuing an exclusion clause with the insurance policy as whole, particulary in conjunction with the insuring clause : selected seeds pty ltd v wbemm pty ltd 2012
proximate cause of loss
the onus is on the insured to establish that the loss is covered by the terms of the policy. it is only where the risk insured against was the “proximate” (ie direct, dominant or effective) cause of the loss that the insurer will be liable to indemnify the insured
where the insurer relies on an exclusion clause in the policy, the onus is on the insurer to establish that the loss in question fell within one of the exceptions
if there are two or more proximate causes of the loss, one of which arises from an insured peril and the other arises from an excepted peril, the insured is not entitled to recover: petersen v union des assurances de paris aird (1995)
provisions of the insurance contracts act 1984
the act contains a number of important limitations on the right of an insurer to avoid liability for a claim on the ground of breach by the insured of a warranty or condition in the insurance policy:
- ie: the insurer may not refuse to pay
claims in certain circumstances
insurer may not refuse to pay claims in certain circumstances
provided the act or omission could not reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to a loss in respect of which cover is provided, the insurer may not refuse to pay all or part of the claim by reason only of that act or omission: s54(1)
where the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as capable of causing or contributing to a loss, the insurer may refuse to pay the claim:
- in such a case the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim, or that part of the claim, which the insured proves was not caused by the act or omission: s54(2)-(4)
12.840
maxwell v highway hauliers pty ltd 2014