No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lecture I. Conditions in Life Policies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2013
Extract
In the lectures which I delivered last year to the Actuarial Society of Edinburgh, I dealt with the representations in the proposal for insurance which usually form the subject of one of the conditions in the policy. In the present lecture I propose dealing with the other usual conditions in life policies, including the statutory condition as to insurable interest, the conditions relating to the payment of premiums, and lastly, the conditions excepting certain risks from the policy in respect either of locality, occupation, or cause of death. I shall also deal incidentally with the powers of local agents to waive a forfeiture of any of the conditions of the policy. In regard to the references to the American authorities, perhaps I should explain that I have in all cases referred to English or Scottish authorities where there were any, and have only used American cases as ancillary to our own, or where there was no English or Scottish authority. In some cases I have referred to American authorities by way of contrast, but when this is the case, I have always explained the differences between the American law and our own.
- Type
- Lectures on Insurance Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1896
References
page 267 note a The abbreviated references usually adopted are U. S. for Otto's Supreme Court Reports. Am. R. and Am. St. R. for the series of cases selected from the State Courts Reports, and republished in the “American Reports,” and “American State Reports,” respectively.
page 268 note a Dalby v. India and London Assurance Co., 15 C. B. 365; Law v. Indisputable Life Ins. Co., 1 K. & J. 223; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457.
page 268 note b Keith v. Protection Marine Ins. Co., 10 L. R. Ireland, 51.
page 268 note c Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724; Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579. In America, wager insurances are held to be illegal by the rule of common law, but a pecuniary, interest is not held necessary. Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. France, 94 U.S. 561; May on Insurance, 2nd edition, §§103–107.
page 268 note d Bradford v. Saunders, 25 W. R. 650.
page 269 note a L. R. [1892] 1 Q. B. 864.
page 269 note b Connecticut Mut. Life Ins, Co. v. Luchs, 108 U.S. 498:
page 270 note a Bevin v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 23 Conn. 244. May on Insurance, §109.
page 270 note b Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579.
page 270 note c Marquess of Northampton v. Pollock, 45 Ch. D. 190; App. Cas. [1892], 1.
page 271 note a Ulrich v. Reinoehl, 1891, 143 Penn. 238; 24 Am. St. R. 534.
page 271 note b 25 W. R. 650.
page 271 note c 3 B. & S. 579.
page 272 note a Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724. Reed v. Royal Exch. Co., Peake's Add. Cas. 70. Shilling v. Accidental Death Ins. Co., I. F. & F. 116.
page 272 note b See Wight v. Brown, 11 D. 459.
page 272 note c May on Insurance, § 104, and cases cited infra. The principles of the American cases seems equally applicable to the law of Scotland.
page 272 note d Ætna Ins. Co. v. France, 94 U.S. 561; Currier v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 52 Am. R. 134, and note by Reporter, p. 135. May on Insurance, 2nd edition, §§ 103–107.
page 273 note a Cleaver v. The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass. (1892), 1 Q. B. 147.
page 273 note b Ashley v. Ashley, 3 Simon 149.
page 273 note c 2 Times L. R. 755.
page 273 note d 1 Moo. & R. 481, 486.
page 274 note a 72 Law Times Eeps. 140.
page 274 note b See also Collett v. Morrison, 9 Hare 162; Scott v. Roose, Longfield and Townsend's Irish Reports, 54; Hodson v. Observer Life Ass. Soc. 8 E & B 40.
page 274 note c Evans v. Bignold, L. R., 4 Q. B. 622.
page 274 note d Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775; Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Hazlewood, 16 Am. St. R. 893, and note by Reporter, p. 906.
page 275 note a Crotty v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 144 U.S. 621.
page 275 note b Worthington v. Curtis, 1 Ch. D. 419.
page 275 note c Bursinger v. Bank of Watertown, 58 Am. R. 848; note to Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Hazlewood, 16 Am. St. R. 893.
page 275 note d Sickness and Accident Assurance Association v. General Accident Assurance Corporation, 19 Rettie 997, 985.]
page 275 note e 16 Q. B. D. 727.
page 276 note a See British Equitable Insurance Company v. Great Western Railway, 38 L. J. Ch. 314, where this rule was expressly stated as a condition of acceptance.
page 276 note b Eames v. Home Insurance Company, 94 U.S. 621, 626 et seq.
page 275 note c Kelly v. London and Staffordshire Fire Insurance Company [1883], 1 C. & E. 47.
page 277 note a 1890; 17 Am. St. Reps. 233.
page 277 note b Southern Life Insurance Company v. Booker, 24 Am. R. 344.
page 277 note c Phœnix Company v. Sheridan, 1860, 8 H. L. C. 745.
page 277 note d Insurance Company v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 572, 579; Union Central Life Insurance Company v. Pottker, 31 Am. R. 555.
page 277 note e Insurance Company v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 572.
page 277 note f Meyer v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, 29 Am. R. 200; 73 N. Y. 517; and note by Reporter, , Eddy v. Phœnix Mutual Life lnsurance Company, 23Google Scholar Am. St. R. 17.
page 278 note a Leslie v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, 63 N. Y 27.
page 278 note b 2 C. B. (N. S.) 257.
page 279 note a Montreal Assurance Company v. M'Gillivray, 13 Moore's P. C. C. 119–124; Union Central Life Insurance Company v. Pottker, 31 Am. R. 555.
page 279 note b Linford v. Provincial Horse and Cattle Insurance Company, 34 Beavan 291; Barker v. North British Insurance Company, 6 W. S. 323; Insurance Company v. Mowry, 96 U.S. 544.
page 280 note a 7 M. & W. 151.
page 281 note a 1856, 17 C. B. 644.
page 281 note b General rule stated in Montreal Assurance Company v. M'Gillivray, 13 Moore's P. C. C. 119–124; Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 U.S. 234.
page 281 note c 1854, 5 De. G. M. & G. 265. See also Bawden v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Company, L. R. [1892], 2 Q. B. 534.
page 282 note a In the case of the Newcastle Fire Insurance Company v. Macmorran (3 Dow's Appeals, 255), in answer to the plea of breach of warranty it was alleged that the agent of the company through whom the insurance was negotiated, had taken it for granted that the premises were of the first class of risk specified in the printed forms of proposal, and had made out the policy accordingly, without any representation on the part of the proposer. It appears from Lord Eldon's judgment that he would have held this to be a good defence if it had been established by the evidence (pp. 262 263).
page 282 note b Brown v. Mass. Mut. Ins. Go., 47 Am. Reps. 205.
page 282 note c In re Leslie, 23 Ch. D. 552; Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Go., 34 Ch. D. 234.
page 283 note a Want v. Blunt, 12 East 183.
page 284 note a Pritchard v. The Merchants' Life Assurance Soc., 1858, 3 C.B. (N. S. ) 622, opinion of Willes, J., 642.
page 286 note a 5 Man. & G. 639.
page 286 note b 2 Car. & K. 134, and Clift v. Schwabe, 3 C. B. 437.
page 287 note a Connecticut Life Ins. Co. v. Akens, 150 U.S. 468; Life Insurance Co. v. Terry, 15 Wallace's American S. C. Reps. 580; May on Insurance, 2nd Edition, Chap. xiii. § 307 et seq.
page 287 note b Walcott v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 34 Am. St. R. 923.