Post Contractual Contract Principles And The Insurer

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.

In Maryland, insurance policies are generally construed in the same manner as contracts. Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass 'n, Inc., 327 Md. 1, 5, 607 A.2d 537 (1992). An insurance contract, like any other contract, is measured by its terms unless a statute, a regulation, or public policy is violated thereby. Pac. Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Md. 383, 388, 488 A.2d 486 (1985). We do not follow the rule, adopted in other jurisdictions, that an insurance policy is to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Cheney, 315 Md. at 766. We construe the instrument as a whole in order to determine the parties’ intent. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388; Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Aragona v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 281 Md. 371, 375, 378 A.2d 1346 (1977). In order to determine the intention of the parties, “Maryland courts should examine the character of the contract, its purpose, and the facts and circumstances of the parties at the time of execution.” Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388 (citations omitted). In doing so, we give the words their usual, ordinary, and accepted meanings. Id.; Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ackerman, 162 Md. App. 1, 5, 872 A.2d 110 (2005) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scherr, 101 Md. App. 690, 695, 647 A.2d 1297 (1994)). The test is what meaning a reasonably prudent layperson would attach to the term. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388.

“An insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured. That duty, however, runs only from the insurer to the insured, not to third parties.” Id. at page 5.

Currently the Scottish Government is considering the adoption of Pre-Action Protocols in order to simplify and standardise the process which claimants go through to pursue clinical negligence claims. It has been suggested they would incorporate some of the main features of the existing Law Society of Scotland Protocols, which cover professional negligence, personal injury and other claims. They would also incorporate some of the main features of the English Pre-Action Protocols for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes. Adoption of the Pre-Action Protocols to cover clinical negligence claims is highly recommended and their adoption is considered an overdue reform within the field of

Most customers have been compensated by RBS; however I believe RBS’s trust bond with their customers has already been damaged. This influences customer’s behaviour before they buy and insurance products or additional insurance products as they will think twice before

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

McNiece succeeded at first instance in the SC of NSW.  On appeal to the Court of Appeal the court found there was no privity of contract and McNiece had not provided consideration to Trident.  Nevertheless they found for McNiece on the ground that under insurance policies beneficiaries can sue on the policy despite no privity or consideration.  Trident appealed to the High Court.

Read the Insurance Company ABC Inc. Participating Provider Agreement in this attachment. Assume that ABC, inc. has submitted this proposed contract to you in your capacity as chief negotiator for Independence Hospital. List at least three proposed changes which you would like to negotiate with ABC and explain your rationale for each change.

Increase in the number of complaints made against the National Health Service in Scotland (NHS), clinical negligence claims and the spiralling costs of these claims have prompted many to question whether the fault-based compensation system for medical injuries (current system) can operate to efficiently compensate claimants

NHS Health Scotland (hereafter, NHS) aims to provide high quality medical health care and treatment. Nevertheless, occasionally, a patient may suffer medical injury as a result of the medical practitioners conduct. In such circumstances the patient has the option to make a claim for financial compensation from the NHS for the consequential injury. In Scotland the fault-based compensation system (hereafter, fault-based system) operates to financially compensate patients for medical injuries inflicted due to the medical practitioner’s negligence. Under the common-law of negligence legal tests are established which must be proved by the patient to establish the medical practitioners negligence.

"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.

The way that the Swedish System operates to compensate claimants for medical accidents is that claimants are required to make a no-fault claim and if they fail in that claim they retain a right to litigate and vice versa. Even though, the Swedish system is based on the “avoidability test” they recommended that Scotland base their system on “clear descriptions of which injuries are not eligible for compensation under the system.” The review group asserted that adoption of the Swedish System may prove to be cost effective.

“Liabilities are debts: money you owe. Every business carries some liabilities—for example, ongoing payments to suppliers, rent for your office, compensation to employees, or fees for contractors” (Mancuso, 2014). Added liabilities may result if a business is ravaged by a fire or flood or if the business owner(s) become the victim of a lawsuit—for example, a patron, client or customer decides to sue your company after hurting themselves on company property. It is the intent of this paper to examine the role and responsibility of liability in different types of businesses from sole proprietorships to

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

A contract is an agreement that is voluntarily entered into by two or more parties that specifically causes a legal obligation. Within the original contact there is, then, the expectation that all parties would perform as agreed unless the parties agree together to change the terms of the contract, or the actions of the party that deviates from the terms of the contract are ratified (implicitly accepted) by the other party. Product liability is an area of law in which any organization that either makes products (manufacturers) or distributes to the public (makes available) may be held responsible for potential injuries that may be caused by those products. In the United States, claims for product liability are usually associated with some type of negligence, breach of warranty, or other consumer protection issues. However, the large majority of product liability laws vary considerably because they are determined from state to state. This, of course, makes it problematical to litigate across state boundaries, as well as ensure that manufacturing requirements are met more universally (Golden, 2000).