Duty Of Disclosure Of The Agent

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

The full disclosure principle states that any future event that may or will occur, and thatwill have a material economic impact on the financial position of the business, should be disclosed to probable and potential readers of the statements. Such disclosures are most frequently made by footnotes. For example, a hotel should report the building of a new wing, or the future acquisition of another property. A restaurant facing a lawsuit from a customer who was injured by tripping over a frayed carpet edge should disclose the contingency of the lawsuit. Similarly, if accounting practices of the current financial statements were changed and differ from those previously reported, the changes should

One of the principal grounds for rejecting insurance claims is that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy, or is specifically excluded. The rule that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses should be interpreted narrowly is really just a corollary of the Contra Proferentem rule which applies in the event of ambiguity i.e. it is the insurer who likely drafted the insurance contract and construing coverage provisions broadly, or exclusion clauses narrowly, will be to the detriment of the insurer as the party who drafted the contract. The construction of exclusion clauses and coverage provisions helps justify the objective intention of the contract. This is the intention which the court considers, a reasonable person in the position of the contracting parties, would have had. It is submitted that coverage provisions should be broad and encompassing and exclusion clauses should be narrow. However, before such a conclusion is reached, this paper will aim to justify the reasoning behind such a claim analysing arguments for and against such a proposition, drawing upon the landmark case Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd to help relate the discussion to issues raised by such considerations.

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted

Held: At least in relation to insurance policies, and almost certainly in relation to contract of indemnity generally, where the evidence is that third parties were in the contemplation of the principal, then those third parties can enforce the contract. That was the

Following Bridge’s comment that “the juridical basis of the duty to mitigate is obscure”, the first section of the essay will examine whether mitigation is best explained as an aspect of causation. It will be considered if causation explains mitigation, whether causation is the superior explanation, before discussing an alternative approach based on a reformulation of the compensatory principle. The second section of the essay will examine the true basis for the rules of remoteness in contract and tort, and will ask whether the

Fluor and Henkel concerned and insured’s right to assign the right to invoke defense and indemnification coverage under a liability policy. In Henkel, the Court held the consent-to-assignment clause was enforceable and precluded the insured’s right to assign without the insurer’s consent until there exists a “chose in action” against the insured. In Henkel, the “chose in action” was found to occur only when the claims have been reduced to a sum of money due under the policy.

In this paper I shall focus on the Knowing Receipt doctrine, and it shall consist of twofold: First, A study of the basis of the liability and the knowledge requirement under the knowing receipt doctrine, through a review of the English and Australian case law; and secondly, I will relate to proposal by some scholars to recognize knowing receipt as a strict liability claim.

Demonstrative of the Court’s unwillingness to create a bright-line rule is the heavily litigated case of Workmen’s Auto Insurance Company v. Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. In 2011, the Court of Appeal in Workmen’s answered the question regarding fiduciary duties of brokers and agents definitively in the negative, ruling that “an insurance broker cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty.” The ruling finally provided the guidance and rule necessary to put the issue to rest. However, the relief was short lived when in 2012, after a rehearing that affirmed the Court’s ruling, the opinion was vacated and depublished, again leaving the law in this area without

Hocker and CIC mutually entered a contract which is valid and continued to be effective with responsibility and benefit. Each party voluntarily executed the contract and committed to it. CIC has never denied the validity of the executed contract and CIC has never substantiated any failure or noncompliance on Mr. Hocker’s part. On the other side, Mr. Hocker had put all his trust in CIC, fulfilled his contractual duty, paying all premium timely and complied with all terms and condition of the policy holder. Ultimately, Mr. Hocker purchased insurance from CIC with only reason-to buy peace of mind.

1.2.1. Justices Mason, Brennan, Deane, and Dawson in Khoury v. Government Insurance Office of NSW states that the discovery of a breach that is serious or of an essential term creates paths available for the innocent party in which they are ‘…confronted by two truly alternative rights … the right to avoid or terminate a contract and the right to affirm it and insist on performance…’ They continue by quoting Lord Diplock’s judgment in Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd , that if the plaintiff follows through on either path ‘…may lose one of [the rights] by acting "in a manner which is consistent only with his having chosen to rely on [the opposing right]"’

Equity does not concern itself with the protection of trivial or banal information (AG v Guardian Newspaper) therefore we need to determine whether the information warrants equity’s protection.

Overall I found Kinsale’s claims department to be an average claims operation; as a matter of practice, Kinsale has instructed their claim staff, as a protective measure, not to document their claim files with any opinion related statements with regards to liability, damages, file direction and-or claim value. Kinsale is of the opinion; Bad Faith litigation is occurring with greater frequency against insurers. That all insurers, are under a constant threat by the plaintiff’s bar, who are looking to expose carriers through discovery to Bad Faith litigation and seeking to identify any missteps in the claims handling process. Consequently, Kinsale has a heighten sensitivity to Bad Faith litigation, restricting their claims staff from posting any

The rules for construction of guarantees and indemnities have recently changed course creating significant judicial confusion and debate over the correct approach. The High Court decision in Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (‘Andar’) has reinstated the views in Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd ( 'Ankar '), that the liability of a surety is strictissimi juris and that ambiguous contractual provisions should be construed in favour of the surety. However, Andar’s application of guarantee construction principles to the interpretation of indemnities have created confusion and debate about the position of from the courts earlier commercial construction favoured in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Aust Pty Ltd