No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Misrepresentation and Concealment as affecting Policies of Insurance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2013
Extract
It will probably conduce to clearness if I explain at the outset the order in which I propose to deal with the subject of this paper.
In the first part of the paper I propose to discuss, in relation to policies of insurance, (1) the general rules of law in regard to fraud or misrepresentation in the preliminary negotiations, as invalidating contracts; and (2) the rules of law as to concealment in relation to contracts, such as contracts of insurance, in regard to which the law requires the utmost good faith on both sides. I shall also consider the effect of misrepresentation or concealment by a third party, not a party to the contract.
In the second part I shall refer to the usual forms of provision in policies of life assurance, relating to the answers by the assured to the questions in the proposal, and consider their effect in modifying the rules of the common law. In this connection I shall endeavour to classify policies on well-marked lines of distinction, and will also deal with the question of the interpretation of the usual inquiries in the proposal, and the rules of construction of ambiguous or contradictory provisions in the policy or declaration.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1896
References
page 118 note 1 Bell's Principles, Secs. 13 and 14, and Editor's notes.
page 118 note 2 Edinburgh United Breweries Co. v. Molleson, 20 Rettie 581.
page 118 note 3 Taylor v. Tweedie, 3 Macph, 928; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519.
page 118 note 4 Wheelton v. Hardisty, 8 E. & B. 232.
page 119 note 1 London Assurance v. Mansel, 1879, L. R. 11. Ch. D. 363, 367, and cases cited.
page 119 note 2 Lord Herschell in Derry v. Peek, 14 App. Cas., 337, 359.
page 120 note 1 Menzies v. Menzies, 30 S. L. R. 530, per Ld. Watson 535; Stewart v, Kennedy, 17 Rettie (H. of L.) 25, 29.
page 120 note 2 London Assurance v. Mansel supra, Bunyon, pp. 38, 58.
page 120 note 3 Anson, , Law of Contract, 168 (7th Edition).Google Scholar
page 120 note 4 Davies v. London and Provincial M. Ins. Co., L. R., 8 Ch. D. 469.
page 121 note 1 Per Blackburn J. in Ionides v. Pender, L. R., 9 Q. B. 537.
page 121 note 2 Blackburn v. Vigors, 17 Q. B. D. 553, 12 App. Cas. 531.
page 121 note 3 Wheelton v. Hardesty, 8 E. & B. 232.
page 122 note 1 Phœnix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183.
page 123 note 1 11 Ch. D. 363.
page 124 note 1 Towne v. Fitchburg Ins. Co., 7 Allen, 51. (American.)
page 124 note 2 Nichols v. Fayette Ins. Co., 1 Allen, 63. (American.)
page 125 note 1 Life Association of Scotland v. Foster, 11 Macph. 351, 365.
page 125 note 2 2 Park on Ins. 933 et seq. (8th edition).
page 125 note 3 Jones v. Provincial Insurance Co. 3 C. B. (N. S.) 65.
page 125 note 4 11 Macph. 351; see also Fowkes v. Manchester and London Life Assurance Association, 3 B. & S. 917 (1863).
page 126 note 1 7 Dunlop, 467.
page 126 note 2 Grattau v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 44 Am. Reps 372.
page 126 note 3 9 App. Case 671 (1884).
page 127 note 1 Cobb v. Covenant Mut. Benefit Association; 25 Am. St. Reps. 619; Metropolitan Ins. Co. v. M'Tague; 60 Am. Reps. 661; Etna Law Ins. Co. v. France, 91 U.S. 510.
page 127 note 2 Brown v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 8 Am. St. Reps. 894, and cases cited.
page 127 note 3 8 E. & B. 232.
page 128 note 1 Pawson v. Watson, Cowper, 785, 788.
page 128 note 2 Lord Herschell in Derry v. Peek, 14 App. Cas. 337, 369.
page 129 note 1 Wood v. Dwarris, 11 Exch., 493; Wheelton v. Hardesty 8 E. & B. 232.
page 129 note 2 9 L. R. Q. B. 328 (1874). See also Cazenove v. Brit. Equitable Ass. Co. (1859) 6 C. B. N. S. 437.
page 129 note 3 8 E. & B. 232 (1858).
page 130 note 1 Anderson v. Fitzgerald (1853) 4 H. of L. Cases, 484.
page 130 note 2 London Guarantee Co. v. Fearnley, 5 App. Cas. 911, 919, per Lord Watson.
page 130 note 3 London Assurance Co. v. Mansel, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 367.
page 130 note 4 Ibid. at p. 371; Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 190.
page 131 note 1 National Bank v. Ins. Co. 95 U.S. 673. See also Moulor v. Am. Life Ins. Co. III U.S. 335.
page 132 note 1 Nat. Bank v. Insurance Co., 95 U.S. 673, 678, 679.
page 132 note 2 3 B. & S. 917.
page 133 note 1 17 Am. Reps. 372. We adopt the narrative of the case given in Barber, , Laus of Ins. p. 64.Google Scholar
page 134 note 1 Bawdeu v. London, Edinburgh & Glasgow Assurance Co. (1892), 2 Q. B. 534.
page 135 note 1 Follette v. United States Mutual Accident Association (1890), 22 Am. St. K. 878.
page 135 note 2 Wing v. Harvey (1854), 5 De. G. M, & G. 265.
page 136 note 1 Scottish Equitable Life Ass. Soc. v. Buist, 4 Rettie 1076, 1081; and note 17 Am. St. R. 247.
page 136 note 2 Scottish Equitable Life Ass. Soc. v. Buist, supra.
page 136 note 3 Hale v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 64 Am. Dec. 370.
page 136 note 4 See, inter alia, Continental Insurance Co. v. Pearce, 7 Am St R 557 and note; German Insurance Co. v. Gray 19 Am. St. R. 150; Brown v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 8 Am. St. R. 894. As to msured's duty to read, see Ryan v. World Mutual Life Insurance Co., 19 Am. R. 490; N. Y. Life Ins. Co v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519.
page 136 note 5 Equitable L. Ins. Co. v. Haylewood, 16 Am. St R 893.
page 138 note 1 Continental Ins. Co. v. Pearce, 7 Am. St. R. 557, 560; Gans v. St. Paul, F. & M. Ins. Co. 28 Am. R. 535; Planter's Ins. Co. v. Myers, 30 Am. R. 521: Kausal v. Minnesota, F. M. F. Ins. Assn. 47 Am. R. 776; Whited v. Germania, F. Ins. Co. 32 Am. R. 330, and cases cited in note 77 Am. D. 724, and in May on Insurance sec. 140 (2nd Edn.); contraRohrback v. Germania F. Ins. Co. 20 Am. R 451; Alexander v. Germania F. Ins. Co., 23 Am. R. 76.
page 138 note 2 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519.
page 139 note 1 117 U.S. p. 529.
page 139 note 2 Richardson v. Maine Ins. Co. 74 Am. Dec. 459.
page 139 note 3 Saunders v. Cooper, 12 Am. St. R. 801.