No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on Recent Legal Decisions relating to Life Assurance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Extract
In 1893 Mr. William Harvey delivered to the Actuarial Society of Edinburgh a paper on “Misrepresentation and Concealment as affecting policies of Insurance,” and in the following year a series of “Lectures on Insurance Law.” I have no desire to trench upon the ground covered in these lectures, but what I now propose is to supplement them by putting before you, briefly, the results of the more important decisions relating to life assurance which have occurred in the English and Scottish Courts since these lectures were delivered. In dealing with the decisions I propose to follow the order of treatment adopted by Mr. Harvey, and I shall endeavour, also following him, to notice the American cases, and to indicate how far these are likely to be useful as authorities in our law. The subject of Trust and Settlement Policies has been separately dealt with by Mr. Constable in his paper on “The Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act, 1880”; but there are a number of decisions since that paper was delivered which also I think it right to bring under your notice.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1907
References
page 85 note 1 Transactions of the Actuarial Society of Edinburgh, vol. iii. p 117.
page 85 note 2 Ibid. p. 267.
page 85 note 3 American decisions are indicated by the abbreviated titles of the Reports viz., “U.S.” for Otto's Supreme Court Reports, and “Am. St. R.” for the American State Reports.
page 85 note 4 Ibid. p. 341.
page 86 note 1 Wheaton v. The North British Insurance Company (1888), 9 Am. St. R. 216.
page 86 note 2 National Bank v. Union Insurance Company (1891), 22 Am. St. R. 324; Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin (1887), 120 U.S. 183.
page 86 note 3 Barnard v. Faber, L.R. (1893), 1 Q.B. 340, p. Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.
page 86 note 4 Hambrough v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (1895), 72 Law Times Reports, 140, p. Lord Justice Lopes.
page 86 note 5 (1897), 13 Times Law Reports, 245.
page 87 note 1 March v. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1898), 65 Am. St. R. 887; Globe Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Wagner (1900) 80 Am. St. R. 169.
page 88 note 1 Thomson v. Weems (1884), L.R., 9 A.C. 671, p. Ld. Watson.
page 88 note 2 Reid and Company v. The Employers Accident Assurance Association (1899), 1 Fraser 1031.
page 88 note 3 (1863), 3 B. & S. 917.
page 89 note 1 Patterson v. The Natural Premium Mutual Life Insurance Company (1898), 69 Am. St. R. 899.
page 89 note 2 Mareck v. The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (1895), 54 Am. St. R. 613; Goodwin v. The Provident Savings Life Assurance Association (1896), 59 Am. St. R. 411; Sun Life Insurance Company v. Taylor (1900), 94 Am. St. R. 383.
page 89 note 3 Insurance Company v. Fox (1901), 82 Am. St. E. 885.
page 89 note 4 Clement v. Insurance Company (1898), 70 Am. St. R. 650.
page 89 note 5 (1890), 22 Am. St. R. 878.
page 90 note 1 L. R. (1892), 2 Q. B. 534.
page 90 note 2 (1895), 23 Rettie, 147.
page 91 note 1 L. R. (1902), 1 K.B., 516.
page 91 note 2 Life and Health Assurance Company v. Yule (1904), 6 Fraser, 437.
page 91 note 3 Reid and Company v. The Employers Accident Assurance Association, 1 Fraser, 1031.
page 91 note 4 (1901), 17 Times Law Reports, 229.
page 92 note 1 (1906), 13 Scots Law Times, 858.
page 92 note 2 Cf. The Fidelity Mutual Life Assurance Association v. Harris (1900), 86 Am. St. R. 813.
page 92 note 3 See cases quoted by Mr. Harvey, pp. 136 et seqq.
page 92 note 4 Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company v. Bell (1897), 57 Am. St. R. 140.
page 93 note 1 Royal Neighbors of America V. Boman (1898), 69 Am. St. R. 201; Sternaman v. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1902), 88 Am. St. R. 625.
page 93 note 2 Triple Link Mutual Indemnity Association, v. Williams (1898), 77 Am. St. R. 34.
page 93 note 3 Linford v. Provincial Horse and Cattle Insurance Company (1864), 34 Beavan, 291.
page 93 note 4 Levy v. The Scottish Employers Insurance Association, supra ; Chamberlain v. The Prudential Insurance Company (of America) (1901), 83 Am. St. R. 851.
page 93 note 5 North-Western Masonic Aid Association v. Bodurtha (1899), 77 Am. St. R. 414.
page 93 note 6 Phoenix Insurance Company v. Flemming (1898), 67 Am. St. R. 900.
page 94 note 1 Harse v. The Pearl Life Assurance Company, L.R. (1903), 2 K.B. 92; (1904), 1 K.B. 558.
page 94 note 2 British Workman's and General Assurance Company v. Cunliffe (1902), 18 Times Law Keports, 425, 502.
page 94 note 3 In re Leslie (1883), 23 Ch. D. 552 ; Falcke v. The Scottish Imperial Insurance Company (1887), L.R. 34, Ch. D. 234.
page 94 note 4 Wylie's Executrix v. M'Jannet (1901), 4 Fraser, 195.
page 94 note 5 4 Geo. III. c. 48.
page 94 note 6 Lord Justice Mellish in Worthington v. Curtis (1875), 7 Ch. 424.
page 95 note 1 Hadden v. Bryden (1899), 1 Fraser, 710.
page 95 note 2 Shilling v. Accidental Death Insurance Company, 1 F. & F. 116.
page 95 note 3 Harse v. The Pearl Life Assurance Society, L.R. (1903), 2 K.B. 92; (1904), 1 K.B. 558.
page 95 note 4 United Brethren Mutual Aid Society v. Macdonald (1888), 9 Am. St. R. 111; Prudential Insurance Company (of America) v. Jenkins (1896), 57 Am. St. R. 228.
page 95 note 5 Carpenter v. The United States Life Insurance Company(1894), 41 Am. St. R. 880.
page 96 note 1 (1896), 34 Scottish Law Reporter, 146.
page 96 note 2 Hill v. United Life Insurance Association (1893), 35 Am. St. E. 807; Heinlein v. Imperial Life Insurance Company (1894), 45 Am. St. R. 409; Prudential Insurance Company (of America) v. Hunn (1899), 69 Am. St. R. 380.
page 96 note 3 Prudential Insurance Company (of America) v. Hunn, supra.
page 96 note 4 In re Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, L.R. (1902), 1 Ch. 282.
page 97 note 1 Steinbock v. Diepenbrock (1899), 70 Am. St. R. 424.
page 97 note 2 L. R. (1897), 1 Q. B. 41.
page 97 note 3 Canning v. Farquhar (1886), 16 Q.B. 727; Sickness and Accident Assurance Association v. General Accident Assurance Corporation (1892), 19 Rettie, 977.
page 97 note 4 Farnum v. Phœnix Insurance Company (1890), 17 Am. St. R. 233; Griffith v. New York Life Insurance Company (1894), 40 Am. St. R. 96.
page 98 note 1 Griffith v. New York Life Insurance Company, supra.
page 98 note 2 Chamberlain v. Prudential Insurance Company (of America) (1901), 83 Am. St. E. 851.
page 98 note 3 New York Life Insurance Company v. Babcock (1898), 69 Am, St. R. 134.
page 99 note 1 Phœnix Company v. Sheridan (1860), 8 H. L. C. 745.
page 99 note 2 Handler v. The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (1904), 90 Law Times 192.
page 99 note 3 L. R. (1905), 1 Ch, 365.
page 100 note 1 (1858) 3 C. B. (N. S.), 622.
page 100 note 2 L. R. (1903), 1 K. B. 47.
page 101 note 1 Harvey v. The Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation (1900), 2 Irish Rep. 1 (C.A.).
page 101 note 2 Walcott v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (1891), 33 Am. St. R. 923; Agen v. the same (1899), 76 Am. St. R. 905; Hale v. Life Indemnity and Investment Co. (1896), 52 Am. St. R. 616; Carnes v. Iowa State Travelling Men's Association (1898), 68 Am. St. R. 306; but contrast Travellers' Insurance Co. v. M'Conkey, post.
page 101 note 3 L. R. (1904), 1 K. B. 832.
page 102 note 1 Ritter v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (1898), 169 U. S. 139.
page 102 note 2 The Amicable Society v. Bolland (1830), 4 High N. S. 194.
page 102 note 3 Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Akens (1893), 150 U. S. 468.
page 102 note 4 Billings v. The Accident Insurance Coy. (1891), 33 Am. St. R. 913; Travellers' Insurance Co. v. M'Gonkey (1887), 127 U. S. 661 ; Accident Insurance Co. v. Crandal (1886), 120 U. S. 527.
page 102 note 5 Hart v. Modern Woodmen of America (1899), 72 Am. St. R. 380.
page 102 note 6 Patterson v. The Natural Premium Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1898), 69 Am. St. R. 899.
page 102 note 7 (1894), 21 Rettie 1027.
page 102 note 8 (1904), 7 Fraser 136.
page 103 note 1 Honour v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, L.R. 1900,1 Ch. 852.
page 103 note 2 43 and 44 Vict, c. 26.
page 103 note 3 33 and 34 Vict, c. 95, sec. 10; 45 and 46 Vict, c. 75, sec. 11.
page 103 note 4 In re Browne, L. R. 1903, 1 Ch. 188.
page 104 note 1 (1906), 22 Times Law Rep. 259.
page 104 note 2 In re Griffith's Policy, L. R. 1903, 1 Ch. 188.
page 104 note 3 (1895), 23 Rettie 146.
page 104 note 4 Coulson's Trs. v. Coulson (1901), 3 Fraser 1041.
page 104 note 5 Transactions of the Faculty of Actuaries, vol. ii. p. 343.
page 104 note 6 L. R. 1897, 2 Ch. 415.
page 105 note 1 (1901), 9 Soots Law Times, 200.
page 105 note 2 (1900), 2 Fraser 1094.
page 105 note 3 (1877), 5 Rettie 185.
page 105 note 4 (1891), 18 Rettie 491.
page 105 note 5 (1886), 13 Rettie 678.
page 105 note 6 Cf. also In re Lavender's Policy, L. R. Ir. 1898, vol. i. p. 175. A stipulation attached to property given to a married woman for her separate use that such property shall not he assignable is in England operative at common law during her marriage ; and such a stipulation may be attached not only where the property is made the woman's separate estate by contract or declaration of the donor, but also where it becomes so by operation of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. In re Lumley ex parte Hood Barrs, L. R. 1896, 2 Ch. 690.
page 106 note 1 L. R. 1904, 2 K. B. 658.