"However a person may also be interested in his former wife/husband where ties of affection and care continue to exist" 3 The fact that Vicky called Dave to set right the faulty wiring even after their divorce would prove that there existed cordial relationship between them signifying existence of insurable interest.
However as a matter of abundant precaution, it is advised that confidential enquires must be made rule out the remote chances of Dave’s intention to kill her in a seemingly accidental fire due to faulty wiring, before settling his claim.
Secondly Dave’s claim for the damage to the house due to the fire can not be entertained for the following reasons.
The fire policy is a contract of indemnity unlike a life policy. In contract of indemnity, insurable interest must be present both at the time of conclusion of contract as well as at the time of occurrence of the insured event. In this case, because of the confirmed ownership of the house in Vicky’s name and because of their divorce, Dave did not have insurable interest on Vicky’s life. Further because his wiring was faulty and his negligence contributed to the loss and even if he had had insurable interest, he is not eligible for claim on the damage to the house.
The second case is regarding Brian who dies while surfing apparently due to drowning confirmed by the presence of water in the lungs in post mortem. The fact that he over-exerted himself while jogging can be attributed as a contributory negligence and hence the claim of his lawyers for 20, 000 need not be settled provided there are provisions in the personal accident policy to that effect."An injured person’s failure to exercise due care, which along…
Uzbekistan Insurance Company
Three questions arise for considering the claims of Dave:
1) Whether he has insurable interest on Vicky’s life even after their divorce
2) Whether death of Vicky was caused by his evil design under the pretext of accidental fire and
3) Whether he has insurable interest on the house and whether his negligence in wiring disqualifies him from making the claim.
The second case of Brian need not be settled because of his contributory negligence though his lawyers can claim for relief due to comparative negligence. The third case of Heather’s death due to hospital’s ineffective cleaning though she had been admitted due to allergy which she had not disclosed in the proposal, her husband’s can be settled at higher premium rate with proportionately reduced sum assured since it would be too harsh to reject the claim on two counts. One even if she had stated the allergic condition, only higher premium would have applied and two, the death was not due to allergy.
The second case is regarding Brian who dies while surfing apparently due to drowning confirmed by the presence of water in the lungs in post mortem. The fact that he over-exerted himself while jogging can be attributed as a contributory negligence and hence the claim of his lawyers for ₤ 20, 000 need not be settled provided there are provisions in the personal accident policy to that effect.”An injured person’s failure to exercise due care, which along with another person’s (the defendant’s) negligence, contributed to the injury.