| Carter v Boehm | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | King's Bench |
| Citation(s) | (1766) 3 Burr 1905, (1766) 97 ER 1162 |
| Case opinions | |
| Lord Mansfield | |
Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905 is a landmark English contract law case, in which Lord Mansfield established the duty of utmost good faith or uberrimae fidei in insurance contracts.
Carter was the Governor of Fort Marlborough (now Bengkulu, Sumatra), built by the British East India Company. Carter took out an insurance policy with Boehm against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy. A witness, Captain Tryon, testified that Carter was aware that the fort was built to resist attacks from natives but would be unable to repel European enemies, and he knew the French were likely to attack. The French successfully attacked, but Boehm refused to honour the indemnifier Carter, who promptly sued.
Lord Mansfield held that Mr Carter, as the proposer owed a duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) to the insurer, he was required to disclose all facts material to the risk:
Insurance is a contract based upon speculation. The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only; the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon the confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risk as if it did not exist. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
Lord Mansfield went on to hold that the duty was reciprocal and that if an insurer withheld material facts, the example cited being that an insured vessel had already arrived safely, the policyholder could declare the policy void and recover the premium.
Lord Mansfield proceeded to qualify the duty of disclosure:
either party may be innocently silent, as to grounds open to both, to exercise their judgment upon.... An under-writer can not insist that the policy is void, because the insured did not tell him what he actually knew.... The insured need not mention what the under-writer ought to know; what he takes upon himself the knowledge of; or what he waives being informed of. The under-writer needs not be told what lessens the risque agreed and understood to be run by the express terms of the policy. He needs not to be told general topics of speculation.
Lord Mansfield found in favour of the policyholder on the grounds that the insurer knew or ought to have known that the risk existed as the political situation was public knowledge:
There was not a word said to him, of the affairs of India, or the state of the war there, or the condition of Fort Marlborough. If he thought that omission an objection at the time, he ought not to have signed the policy with a secret reserve in his own mind to make it void.
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. His judgment in Carter v Boehm was an application of his general principle to the making of a contract of insurance. It was based upon the inequality of information as between the proposer and the underwriter and the character of insurance as a contract upon a "speculation". He equated non-disclosure to fraud. He said at p 1909:
"The keeping back [in] such circumstances is a fraud, and therefore the policy is void. Although the suppression should happen through mistake, without any fraudulent intention; yet still the underwriter is deceived, and the policy is void."It thus was not actual fraud as known to the common law but a form of mistake of which the other party was not allowed to take advantage. Twelve years later in Pawson v Watson (1778) 2 Cowp 786 at 788, he emphasised that the avoidance of the contract was as the result of a rule of law:
"But as, by the law of merchants, all dealings must be fair and honest, fraud infects and vitiates every mercantile contract. Therefore, if there is fraud in a representation, it will avoid the policy, as a fraud, but not as a part of the agreement."
Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss in which, in exchange for a fee, a party agrees to compensate another party in the event of a certain loss, damage, or injury. It is a form of risk management, primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent or uncertain loss.
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 policyholder typically pays a premium, either regularly or as one lump sum. The benefits may include other expenses, such as funeral expenses.
In insurance, the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the policyholder, which determines the claims which the insurer is legally required to pay. In exchange for an initial payment, known as the premium, the insurer promises to pay for loss caused by perils covered under the policy language.
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.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract.
Marine insurance covers the physical loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination. Cargo insurance is the sub-branch of marine insurance, though marine insurance also includes onshore and offshore exposed property,, hull, marine casualty, and marine liability. When goods are transported by mail or courier or related post, shipping insurance is used instead.
Uberrima fides is a Latin phrase meaning "utmost good faith". It is the name of a legal doctrine which governs insurance contracts. This means that all parties to an insurance contract must deal in good faith, making a full declaration of all material facts in the insurance proposal. This contrasts with the legal doctrine caveat emptor.
MIB Group, Inc. or MIB is a membership corporation owned by approximately 430 member insurance companies in the United States and Canada. Formed in 1902 and based in Braintree, Massachusetts, MIB provides services designed to protect insurers, policyholders, and applicants from attempts to conceal or omit information material to underwriting life & health insurance.
Insurance bad faith is a tort unique to the law of the United States that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
Insurance law is the practice of law surrounding insurance, including insurance policies and claims. It can be broadly broken into three categories - regulation of the business of insurance; regulation of the content of insurance policies, especially with regard to consumer policies; and regulation of claim handling wise.
The Marine Insurance Act 1906 is a UK Act of Parliament regulating marine insurance. The Act applies both to "ship & cargo" marine insurance, and to P&I cover.
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.
A reservation of rights, in American legal practice, is a statement that an individual, company, or other organization is intentionally retaining full legal rights to warn others of those rights. The notice avoids later claims that one waived legal rights that were held under a contract, copyright law, or any other applicable law.
Road Traffic Act insurer, or RTA insurer for short, is a colloquial term for an insurer liable to a road traffic accident victim based on a policy that has been voided in the United Kingdom, as defined in Road Traffic Act 1988.
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.
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 is an English contract law case, concerning the principles behind illegal transactions.
The Insurance Act 2015 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament which makes significant reforms to insurance law. It came into effect on 12 August 2016, and follows on from the Consumer Insurance Act 2012 ("CIDRA"). Both of these new Acts are a consequence of the Law Commission's millennium review of the law of insurance in general, and of marine insurance in particular. The Marine Insurance Act 1906 has been amended by these two new Acts.
A liability insurance company's duty to settle is defined as an implied obligation to by the insurer to a policyholder and to a claimant to attempt "in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear." To the surprise of many, a typical liability insurance policy makes no express contractual promise to settle. In California, "an insurer, who wrongfully refuses to accept a reasonable settlement within the policy limits is liable for the entire judgment against the insured even if it exceeds the policy limits." A rationale for this duty is that "[w]hen an offer is made to settle a claim in excess of policy limits for an amount within policy limits, a genuine and immediate conflict of interest arises between carrier and assured." "An insurer who denies coverage does so at its own risk. Such factors as a belief that the policy does not provide coverage, should not affect a decision as to whether the settlement offer in question is a reasonable one." "It is the duty of the insurer to keep the insured informed of settlement offers." "[A]n insurer potentially can be liable for unreasonably coercing an insured to contribute to a settlement fund."