Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The insurer-insured relationship is contractual; the parties are parties to an arms-length agreement. The principle of uberrima fides does not affect the arms-length nature of the agreement, and cannot be used to find a general fiduciary relationship. The insurance contract, as noted above, imposes certain specific obligations on its parties.
In Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd [1] John Hobhouse, Baron Hobhouse of Woodborough said, . As Lord Mustill points out, Lord Mansfield was at the time attempting to introduce into English commercial law a general principle of good faith, an attempt which was ultimately unsuccessful and only survived for limited classes of transactions, one of which was insurance.
Insurance contracts are governed by the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides), which requires both parties of the insurance contract to deal in good faith and in particular, imparts on the insured a duty to disclose all material facts that relate to the risk to be covered. [12]
The European principle was based on the assumption of good faith on the part of the merchants, or uberrima fides, something completely lacking in English law. [47] In Carter v Boehm (1746) 3 Burr 1905, 96 ER 342, Mansfield got a chance to reform the law relating to the assumption of good faith.
Acknowledging that the origin of the phrase “uberrima fides” was doubtful, but noting that it apparently made its appearance in English law in 1850, the court was “unable to find any Roman-Dutch authority in support of the proposition that a contract of marine insurance is a contract uberrima fidei”. The court rejected the expression as ...
uberrima fides: most abundant faith: Or "utmost good faith" (cf. bona fide). A legal maxim of insurance contracts requiring all parties to deal in good faith. ubertas et fidelitas: fertility and faithfulness: Motto of Tasmania. ubi amor, ibi dolor: where [there is] love, there [is] pain: ubi bene, ibi patria: where [it is] well, there [is] the ...
Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins (1765) 3 Burr 1663 is a case concerning letters of credit, and the doctrine of consideration.It has been recommended as a landmark case in English contract law. [1]
Mackenna J held ‘the assured is under a duty of disclosure… [but the] extent of the duty is the matter in controversy.’ You could have a duty to disclose everything you think is material, everything a reasonable person thinks is, everything the particular insurer thinks is, or everything a reasonable or prudent insurer thinks is, like in s 18 Marine Insurance Act 1906.