Case law
Leading insurance and reinsurance authorities, each with its citation and the point it decided.
Carter v Boehm
1766(1766) 3 Burr 1905; 97 ER 1162, King's Bench (Lord Mansfield)
Insurance contracts are founded on utmost good faith and require disclosure of material facts; on the facts the insured succeeded, as the matters not disclosed were known or presumed known to the underwriter.
Analysis →
Lucena v Craufurd
1806(1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269, House of Lords
A mere expectation of benefit is not an insurable interest; the policy was void and the underwriters succeeded.
Analysis →
North British and Mercantile Insurance v London, Liverpool and Globe Insurance
1877(1877) 5 Ch D 569, Court of Appeal
Contribution arises only where policies cover the same interest; the bailee's insurers, covering primary liability, bore the loss alone.
Analysis →
Burnand v Rodocanachi
1882(1882) 7 App Cas 333, House of Lords
Insurers cannot claim, by way of subrogation, a payment made to the insured as a pure gift rather than to reduce the loss.
Analysis →
Castellain v Preston
1883(1883) 11 QBD 380, Court of Appeal
Indemnity: the insured is to be fully indemnified, but never more than fully indemnified, and the insurer's subrogation rights are wide.
Analysis →
Pawsey v Scottish Union and National Insurance Co
1907(1907), cited in CII study materials
Source of the classic definition of proximate cause: the active, efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events.
Analysis →
General information only, not legal advice. Read the full judgment before relying on any authority.