The Ethics Of The English Marine Insurance System

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

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 this essay, the focus is on whether it is morally objectionable for a person to recover damages from another’s breach of contract that results in a better financial position than they would have been if the breach had not occurred. This is because in deciding whether to preserve the principle in Clark, law-makers would place high regard on the analysis of Clark’s normative outcome. The following points are the key arguments against awarding a sum to a higher pecuniary advantage??? Such as Clark, which can be subsequently rebutted in this analysis with “normative” research.

Spring v Guardian Assurance plc9 is key for this discussion. The claimant “won the case on grounds of the defendant’s negligence”.10 The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care in terms of providing a reference. However, there was a partial split in decision between the judges on the defendant’s rejection of liability towards the reference. The Hedley Byrne fundamentals of proximity argued the case focused on

The second type of luck, circumstantial, was described as “luck in one’s circumstances – the kind of problems and situations one faces”, (Nagel, p.28). The drunken drivers’ example belongs to the third type of luck: resultant luck. To many philosophers, the third and fourth type of luck is accountable for one which deals with the causes and effects of action, as Nagel explains, “luck in how one is determined by antecedent circumstances, and luck in the way one’s action and projects turn out.”, (Nagel, p.28). The commonality of these four categories of luck is the idea that “one cannot be more culpable or estimable for anything than one is for that fraction of it which is under one’s control. It seems irrational to take or dispense credit or blame for matters over which a person has no control, or for their influence on results over which he has partial control.” (Nagel, p.28).

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

Proximate cause or cause in fact must ordinarily be elements of proof in all personal injury actions. In negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish essentially four elements: 1) duty; 2) Breach of duty; 3) Causation; and 4) Damages. Obviously cause in fact and proximate cause are part of the causation element.

Instead, the presumed opponent is Mother Nature. Professor Marvin D. Troutt, who wrote the classic work on game theoretical approaches to life insurance purchasing, explains how the potential consumer is at odds with nature: “there is the option of delaying the purchase for a number of years in the future at the risk that Nature, or chance, will intervene and allow death (or insurability) to occur before insurance begins” (Troutt, 1988).

Arguments that an extension of liability for negligence would lead to a flood of litigation or to fraudulent claims were once granted greater credence than they are today. But other arguments, such as the possible commercial or financial consequences, the prospect of indeterminate liability, the possibility of risk-spreading (e.g., through insurance)

It can be concluded that Mr. Prendergast was acting negligently whilst driving his car, above the national speed limit, as confirmed by his insurers. Therefore Contributory Negligence is the basic issue to be consulted with the insurers who are claiming that Steven’s claim ought to be ‘substantially reduced’ due to the negligence on his behalf.

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.

An example of such clauses is the Lloyd’s Market Association which has published the 3100 Sanction Limitation and Exclusion , or GDV . Moreover, the same clause is observed by Hellenic Mutual Protection Indemnity & War Risks Association and Standard P&I Club . Comparing the LMA and Standard Club, we conclude that the wording is specific and strong in both cases, so they are clear for the protection of the insurer. The first instance focus on the source of application of sanctions namely the Organizations that enforce the regulations, while the second, on the kinds of trade operations and voyages that the assured may have in relevance to this country. The penalties for breach of sanctions are generally several. In particular, many banks have suffered huge fines in the United States, a point which except from economical issues, affects to the increase of the potential risk in case of an incident but also to their reputation. Insurers and reinsurers are dealt mainly with client’s services worldwide, so they may be inadvertently involved in sanctions breaches. In 2011, following the examination of a case, a notice of cancellation by EU insurers was formed based on EU Regulation 961/2010, and held to be valid as to deny cover to an Iranian shipowner . Broadly speaking, the most proper solution to stop sanctioned shipping activity is to cut off the availability of insurance cover, in

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.

In the given case study a dispute will arise between the four parties to determine the liability of each vessel for multiple collisions caused at sea. In summary, the facts are that the Flipper was crossing the Britannia Straits traffic separation scheme but was not making proper use of the crossing points. The Willie, a bulk oil carrier which was adhering to the scheme, spotted the Flipper and foresaw the risk of collision so the captain issued a series of warnings. The Flipper ignored these warnings thinking she had enough time to pass. The Willie, realising she was being ignored made a turn for starboard creating a wash which capsized the Flipper and a nearby yacht. Moments later the Orca, which was insufficiently crewed and had faulty