Insurance Law NEWEST 2025/2026 ACTUAL
EXAM COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+||BRAND NEW!!
Save
Terms in this set (99)
Every circumstance is material that will effect the
Material Fact judgement of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium
or determining whether to take the risk.
Defendants cat was shot whilst on their roof.
It was held that this was trespass to land (bullet
Davies v Bennison (1927)
passed over claimants property) and trespass to
goods (the cat)
Held that shooting someones racing pidgeons
Hamps v Derby (1948)
amounts to trespass to goods.
Insurers paid a claim for damaged cargo which had
been destroyed by a confederate cruiser.
The policy did not cove the loss in full.
Difference was made up by a gracious payment from
Burnard v Rodocandi
US congress.
(1882)
Terms of the payment stipulated that no benefit was
to go to underwriters.
The insured was not able to claim by way of
subrogation of money paid by way of a gift.
, It was held that liability insurers could keep a gift from
broker which had been made to partly fund a loss,
Merret v Capital Indemnity
even though the loss had been covered by RI.
Corporation (1991)
The RI's were not allowed to deduct the amount from
the RI claim.
Claimant was a music teacher who gave lessons at her
home and her family enjoyed playing music.
Her house was attached to the defendants who had
complained on many occasions but to no avail.
He took to banging on the walls and beating trays
Christie v Davey (1893)
and shouting in retaliation.
It was held that the defendants actions were
motivated by malice and therefore did not constitute
a nusiance.
An injunction was granted to restrain his actions.
Landlord let a block of flats to tenants for £2500 per
year.
During war he struggled to find tenants and claimant
agreed by letter to reduce current tenants rent to
£1250 a year.
Then in 1945 the claimant claimed rent owing from
Central London Property
1941 of £2500 a year on the basis that no
Trust v High Trees House
consideration had been given for their agreement to
(1947)
reduce it.
Judges held that by the tenants reducing monthly
amounts this was consideration.
Judges held that higher rent could be payable now
but couldn't go back on his promise.
Promissory estoppel.
A butcher insured the life of his right hand man.
Simcock v Scottish Upon loss he claimed under his policy.
Imperial Insurance Co It was held that the amount payable was for one
(1902) weeks wages, the notice period of the right hand
man.
, Son lived with his mum who cared and kept for him.
He claimed that the money paid out was to cover
Harse v Pearl Life funeral costs.
Assurance Co (1904) Held that the policy was void for lack of insurable
interest, the son did not stand to lose financially on
death of his mother, no legal obligation to bury her.
The insured vessel was put to sea in what was held to
be an unseaworthy state because of defects in its fire
fighting equipment and the masters ignorance
regarding the operation of the equipment.
Failure to distinguish the fire caused the loss.
Two vessels owned by the insured had had similar
Manifest Shipping Co v uni
losses.
Polaris Shipping Co (2001)
Experts had drawn the assured to the attention of the
The Star Sea
defects involved.
These were not drawn to the attention of the insurer.
Insurers argued that a failure to disclose these reports
was a breach on continuing good faith.
Confirmed duty on insured throughout the duration of
the insurance.
The ship in question, the Ikara, was insured for perils
of the sea (ex war).
She was hit by a torpedo but reached port where
repair work started.
When a storm blew up the port master ordered her
out of the harbour so that she didn't block the
Leyland v Norwich Union harbour if she sank, which she did after leaving port.
Fire Insurance Society Held;
(1918) The HoL had to decide if the proximate cause was
torpedo or storm.
Held proximate cause was the torpedo as the
damage had been effective throughout.
The chain of events had not been broken.
First case to determine that the proximate cause was
the first peril, previously it was the last.
EXAM COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+||BRAND NEW!!
Save
Terms in this set (99)
Every circumstance is material that will effect the
Material Fact judgement of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium
or determining whether to take the risk.
Defendants cat was shot whilst on their roof.
It was held that this was trespass to land (bullet
Davies v Bennison (1927)
passed over claimants property) and trespass to
goods (the cat)
Held that shooting someones racing pidgeons
Hamps v Derby (1948)
amounts to trespass to goods.
Insurers paid a claim for damaged cargo which had
been destroyed by a confederate cruiser.
The policy did not cove the loss in full.
Difference was made up by a gracious payment from
Burnard v Rodocandi
US congress.
(1882)
Terms of the payment stipulated that no benefit was
to go to underwriters.
The insured was not able to claim by way of
subrogation of money paid by way of a gift.
, It was held that liability insurers could keep a gift from
broker which had been made to partly fund a loss,
Merret v Capital Indemnity
even though the loss had been covered by RI.
Corporation (1991)
The RI's were not allowed to deduct the amount from
the RI claim.
Claimant was a music teacher who gave lessons at her
home and her family enjoyed playing music.
Her house was attached to the defendants who had
complained on many occasions but to no avail.
He took to banging on the walls and beating trays
Christie v Davey (1893)
and shouting in retaliation.
It was held that the defendants actions were
motivated by malice and therefore did not constitute
a nusiance.
An injunction was granted to restrain his actions.
Landlord let a block of flats to tenants for £2500 per
year.
During war he struggled to find tenants and claimant
agreed by letter to reduce current tenants rent to
£1250 a year.
Then in 1945 the claimant claimed rent owing from
Central London Property
1941 of £2500 a year on the basis that no
Trust v High Trees House
consideration had been given for their agreement to
(1947)
reduce it.
Judges held that by the tenants reducing monthly
amounts this was consideration.
Judges held that higher rent could be payable now
but couldn't go back on his promise.
Promissory estoppel.
A butcher insured the life of his right hand man.
Simcock v Scottish Upon loss he claimed under his policy.
Imperial Insurance Co It was held that the amount payable was for one
(1902) weeks wages, the notice period of the right hand
man.
, Son lived with his mum who cared and kept for him.
He claimed that the money paid out was to cover
Harse v Pearl Life funeral costs.
Assurance Co (1904) Held that the policy was void for lack of insurable
interest, the son did not stand to lose financially on
death of his mother, no legal obligation to bury her.
The insured vessel was put to sea in what was held to
be an unseaworthy state because of defects in its fire
fighting equipment and the masters ignorance
regarding the operation of the equipment.
Failure to distinguish the fire caused the loss.
Two vessels owned by the insured had had similar
Manifest Shipping Co v uni
losses.
Polaris Shipping Co (2001)
Experts had drawn the assured to the attention of the
The Star Sea
defects involved.
These were not drawn to the attention of the insurer.
Insurers argued that a failure to disclose these reports
was a breach on continuing good faith.
Confirmed duty on insured throughout the duration of
the insurance.
The ship in question, the Ikara, was insured for perils
of the sea (ex war).
She was hit by a torpedo but reached port where
repair work started.
When a storm blew up the port master ordered her
out of the harbour so that she didn't block the
Leyland v Norwich Union harbour if she sank, which she did after leaving port.
Fire Insurance Society Held;
(1918) The HoL had to decide if the proximate cause was
torpedo or storm.
Held proximate cause was the torpedo as the
damage had been effective throughout.
The chain of events had not been broken.
First case to determine that the proximate cause was
the first peril, previously it was the last.
