Related Research Articles
Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management, primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent or uncertain loss.
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties’ conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims',The first equitable maxim is 'equity delights in equality' or equity is equality Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.
Life insurance is a contract between an insurance policy holder and an insurer or assurer, where the insurer promises to pay a designated beneficiary a sum of money upon the death of an insured person. Depending on the contract, other events such as terminal illness or critical illness can also trigger payment. The policy holder typically pays a premium, either regularly or as one lump sum. The benefits may include other expenses, such as funeral expenses.
Title insurance is a form of indemnity insurance predominantly found in the United States and Canada which insures against financial loss from defects in title to real property and from the invalidity or unenforceability of mortgage loans. Unlike some land registration systems in countries outside the United States, US states' recorders of deeds generally do not guarantee indefeasible title to those recorded titles. Title insurance will defend against a lawsuit attacking the title or reimburse the insured for the actual monetary loss incurred up to the dollar amount of insurance provided by the policy.
Subrogation is the assumption by a third party of another party's legal right to collect a debt or damages. It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for one's own benefit. A right of subrogation typically arises by operation of law, but can also arise by statute or by agreement. Subrogation is an equitable remedy, having first developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is a familiar feature of common law systems. Analogous doctrines exist in civil law jurisdictions.
Liability insurance is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims and protects the insured if the purchaser is sued for claims that come within the coverage of the insurance policy.
Whole life insurance, or whole of life assurance, sometimes called "straight life" or "ordinary life," is a life insurance policy which is guaranteed to remain in force for the insured's entire lifetime, provided required premiums are paid, or to the maturity date. As a life insurance policy it represents a contract between the insured and insurer that as long as the contract terms are met, the insurer will pay the death benefit of the policy to the policy's beneficiaries when the insured dies. Because whole life policies are guaranteed to remain in force as long as the required premiums are paid, the premiums are typically much higher than those of term life insurance where the premium is fixed only for a limited term. Whole life premiums are fixed, based on the age of issue, and usually do not increase with age. The insured party normally pays premiums until death, except for limited pay policies which may be paid up in 10 years, 20 years, or at age 65. Whole life insurance belongs to the cash value category of life insurance, which also includes universal life, variable life, and endowment policies.
The term replacement cost or replacement value refers to the amount that an entity would have to pay to replace an asset at the present time, according to its current worth.
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd[1942] UKHL 4 is a leading House of Lords decision on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law.
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.
Dextra Bank & Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica[2001] UKPC 50 is an important case in unjust enrichment in the Privy Council.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd[1956] UKHL 6 is an important English tort law, contract law and labour law, which concerns vicarious liability and an ostensible duty of an employee to compensate the employer for torts he commits in the course of employment.
Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the presentation of a winding up petition.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Insurance in South Africa describes a mechanism in that country for the reduction or minimisation of loss, owing to the constant exposure of people and assets to risks. The kinds of loss which arise if such risks eventuate may be either patrimonial or non-patrimonial.
Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677, [1979] 3 All ER 522 was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the recovery of a payment mistakenly made by a bank after the customer had countermanded the cheque.
Coward v MIB was a 1963 Court of Appeal decision on intention to create legal relations, and on the liability of the Motor Insurers Bureau when a passenger in a vehicle is killed or injured through the driver's negligence.
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the assured later recovers damages from a third party with respect to that same loss. The case also determined that the right of subrogation is fortified by an equitable lien over the proceeds of the claim against the third party.
Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the expired Risk Corridors program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), through which the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) mitigated losses of unprofitable healthcare plans through the profits of the profitable plans during the first three years of the program. Congress had passed legislation as riders in appropriations bills, which prevented the government from making payments to the unprofitable plans. Several of the insurers went bankrupt from the lack of payment, and multiple insurers sued the government to recover their funds on the basis the risk corridor was a commitment to be paid. The Federal Circuit Appeals Court rejected those claims, concluding that the subsequent appropriation riders absolved the government of its responsibility to pay. In the 8–1 decision that consolidated three of the subsequent appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's riders did not cancel the government's obligation under the ACA to pay the full amount to the unprofitable plans, and that the insurers had properly sought relief through a Tucker Act action in the Court of Federal Claims.