Should Coverage Provisions Be Construed Broadly And Exclusion Clauses Narrowly?

Mason & colleagues (2016) lay out three important areas that the ACA provision addresses. First, the ACA provisions address to Expand access and health insurance coverage to improve insurance coverage currently held by most Americans, which lots of people are aware of the changes to and the expansion of health insurance coverage. The provision immediately made some improvements and forwarded them to the insurance system and others and these are some examples that went to effect; Elimination of lifetime and unreasonable annual limits on benefits, and it also ceased annual limits in 2014. In addition, the ACA provision altered

been increasing interest in Congress and significant sectors of the insurance industry to establish some form of federal insurance regulation” (Grace, & Klein, 2009). There are many different arguments for those opposed and those in favor of federal regulation.

As far as the Australian Contract Law goes, it can be said that an exclusion clause becomes invalid in any contract if it extends its scope in such a way that it avoids liability for conduct beyond the scope of the contract in any way . This has changed in several ways over the years. This concept shall be discussed in this paper taking into account two Australian Case law namely Sydney City Council v West and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. upon a discussion of the cases, the similarities and differences in the rulings shall be analyzed and a relation of these cases to the current Australian Legal System shall be established.

RELEVANT CASES: According to the case Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, House of Lords decision is that the defendant is not liable if the unexpected happens after taking the safety and precautions to reduce the harm or damage of the customers. The Exclusive clauses are valid when the parties are in the contract and the seeking the limitation and excluding the liabilities to reduce damage for contractual breaches or negligence’s on their part. These clauses are lawful if they met the principle of freedom of contract. These clauses are properly incorporated into the contract and they must be sufficiently cover the liability in the question. In Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Aust. Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 the high court has implemented that exclusive clauses are valid if they met with the clear constructive meaning. If the clauses have more than one meaning and nature which make it as void and not valid. It has been considered in determined for the cases of Sydney city council v West (1965) 114 CLR 481; Thomas National Transport (Melbourne) Pty Ltd v May & Baker (Australia) Pty Ltd (1966) 115 CLR 353 that it should clearly establish the interpretation of an exclusive clauses that to be accord by constructing the clauses according to the relevant

Kati has suffered damages to her vehicle from a natural disaster, which occurred under ESC’s liability. This issue is much different as opposed to ‘LOSS OR THEFT’, which was specified by ESC in the exclusion clause. Potentially ESC could choose to argue that the clause should be interpreted using Noscitur a sociss. Doing so may allow ESC to include damages within the exclusion clause and avoid being held liable to repair Kati’s car. However, Kati argument is still effective as it asserts that the exclusion clause did not specifically cover the breach of liability that occurred to her vehicle. This is a valid argument in Kati’s favour as courts commonly interpret exclusion clauses according to their natural and ordinary meaning, as demonstrated in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd. It will also be difficult for ESC to prove that their clause does cover them for damages as during cases of ambiguity, the exclusion clause will be construed against the party relying on the clause. As a result, the clause will be interpreted in Kati’s favour which makes her argument much more compelling. Together, all these factors make ESC’s argument much harder to justify against Kati’s claim, especially since the clause will only cover a breach that has occurred within the scope of a contract, see Council of the City of Sydney v West. In conclusion, it

Rather than helping the people by offering broader plans, this ‘relaxing of restrictions’ may actually turn into an opposite effect scenario in which people will be struggling for coverage and will eventually revert back to the Affordable Care Act. Yet, people are still attracted to the short term plans because of the cost, and many are willing to pay the price- tax penalties to be exact- all in the hopes of having cheaper insurance. As a result, problems such as insurances not being able to pay their customer’s medical bills and being accused of misleading people towards indecent health care is at risk.

You cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury (see your contact) ◦ cases Activity 3 List different types of exclusion clauses used in the course of business  Other statutes and regulations affecting contractual terms Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) – online sales  Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 – unsolicited goods and services  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977  Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 – courts can strike out unfair terms in consumer contracts  Case Study Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)  A farmer (Mitchell, the claimant) bought cabbage seed from the defendant (Finney Lock Seeds).

A contract is a legally binding agreement providing that there has been an offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations. A term is a component of a contract and it is crucial to determine the classification of the term being adopted, this is for the reason that if there is a breach of a term, this will bring about conditions of breach of contract. Different kinds of terms carry more severe consequences in contrast to others, therefore the contract may be repudiated or damages may be awarded. However terms in insurance contracts are treated differently and further to this the law around terms in insurance contracts has undergone recent legislation. This essay will critically analyse and compare the differences between warranty terms in insurance contracts and non-insurance contracts within the UK, evidencing with relevant case law establishing the legal principles surrounding these cases and the components of these. Additionally this essay will address the recent legislation the Insurance Act 2015 and its effect on insurance contract warranties, which can be seen as a new initiative to make things fairer.

The coverage described in 13.a. only applies when such loss or costs are a result of a Peril Insured Against that occurs during the policy period . . .

Insurers and employer self-insured health plans are required to provide coverage to enrollees in employer-sponsored plans on a guaranteed-issue basis

A further general point to note is that UCTA does not apply to insurance contracts, contracts selling or transferring title to land or those concerning intellectual property (Sch. 1(1)). It has been noted that the lack of coverage of insurance contracts may have had a negative impact on overall fairness, as power imbalance between the two parties in this area of contracting is rife. CASE??

Hence, this paper aims to discuss in greater depth the reasoning and outcome of the two judgments i.e. the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32, and of the Supreme Court judgment in The Cendor MOPU [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560, to see if they are an arguably sufficient justification for the view that the English marine insurance system rules on proximate causation should be repealed and replaced by a system similar to that used in the Nordic Marine Insurance Plan.

Controversy surrounds the ground of the section 19MIA. Both the decisions of Blackburn v Vigors3 and the Blackburn v Haslam4 contribute to the codification of section 19 MIA. Phillips J in Deutsche Ruckversicherungs v Walbrook Insurance5 upheld the view that the duty of disclosure of the agent to insure finds ground on the imputation of the agent 's to insure knowledge to the assured. This viewpoint was one of the opinions explicitly put forward in the Vigor 's decision which contradicts the other viewpoint in the same case, whereas it was maintained that this duty is an independent one irrespective of the assured 's actual or constructive knowledge. The latter notion was later upheld in Sail v Farex6.

There was a contract entered into between Scrutton and the shipping company. The goods, during the shipping, were damaged due to the stevedores’s negligence. The stevedores were in contract under the shipping company regarding the exclusion clause. However, the court decided that the stevedores were the third party thus could not be exempted by the exclusion clause. It even prove the existence of flaws in the doctrine of privity when another case of Elder, Demspter & Co Ltd v Paterson, Zachoni & Co Ltd suggested that with regards to the unfairness achieved in ScruttonLtd v Midland Silicones Ltd, the doctrine should be circumvented and the right of the third party beneficiary should be

When an individual buys health insurance, he/she enters into a contract (policy) with the insurance company so that for a monthly premium, the insurance company will provide cover for medical expenses incurred. The level of cover and the health care providers allowed will range between different products. Coverage will include visits to doctors or hospitals, prescriptions, cost of medical examinations or