<%@LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT"%>
<%
option explicit
%>
<%
dim rsArticles, sSQL, gStr
set rsArticles = server.createobject("adodb.recordset")
rsArticles.cursorlocation = 3
sSQL = sSQL & "SELECT TOP 10 Articles.Article_ID, Articles.Article_Title, Articles.Article_Excerpt, "
sSQL = sSQL & "Articles.Article_Content, Articles.Article_Posted, Articles.Article_Comments, "
sSQL = sSQL & "Articles.Article_Images, Categories.Category_ID, Categories.Category_Title, Users.User_ID, "
sSQL = sSQL & "Users.User_Name FROM FB_Users AS Users INNER JOIN (FB_Categories AS Categories "
sSQL = sSQL & "INNER JOIN FB_Articles AS Articles ON Categories.Category_ID = Articles.Article_Category_ID) "
sSQL = sSQL & "ON Users.User_ID = Articles.Article_User_ID WHERE Article_Status = 1 AND Article_Level = 0 "
sSQL = sSQL & "ORDER BY Article_Posted DESC;"
rsArticles.open sSQL, adoConn
Do While Not rsArticles.EOF
gStr = gStr & "
" & vbCrLf
rsArticles.MoveNext
Loop
%>
<%=gStr%>
Case law
The question of when insurable interest must exist was in doubt before 1854. Should it exist when the contract is formed or when the death occurs, or the claim made? This was resolved by the case of Dalby v India and London Life insurance Company. In this case it was held that insurable interest need only exist at the date the policy starts and the situation at the claim stage is not relevant.
The Life Insurance Act 1774 provides that a life insurance policy effected without interest in null and void. However the act does not impose any punishment for effecting such a policy and it is not a criminal offence. It is therefore possible that an insurance company could waive its right to avoid the policy. In the case of Worthington V Curtis 1875 Mellish said “The statute is a defence to the insurance company only if they choose to avail themselves of it. If they do not, the question is who is entitled to the money, must be determined as if the statue did not exist.”
Unfortunately the position is not free from doubt. In Gedge v Royal Exchange Insurance Corporation 1900 lack of insurable interest was not pleaded but the court refused to enforce the contract when the case revealed there was no insurable interest.
If a life insurance policy is issued with no insurable interest, ignorance of the law by both parties is not a ground on which premiums can be recovered by the policyholder. Harse v Pearl Life Insurance Company 1904.
However premiums can be recovered where the parties are not equally at fault. If the representative of an insurer induced a person to take out a policy knowing there was no insurable interest then the person would have rights to recover the premiums. Hughes v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society 1916.
The case of Fuji Finance v Aetna Insurance Ltd 1996 re-established that the insured can not recover more than the value of their insurable interest.
Consensus ad idem
This term means incomplete agreement of mind. In any contract the parties must be of the same mind ‘ad idem’. In a commercial contract each party is deemed to be equally able to assess the merits of the bargain offered as long as the seller makes no misrepresentation they are under no duty to the buyer to express any opinion over what is offered for sale. Hence the maxim caveat emptor ‘let the buyer be ware’.
This could not apply to life insurance as the proposer knows certain facts, health, occupation and life risks that are unique to him and not openly known to the insurer. The law therefore placed a duty on the proposer of utmost good faith or uberrima fides. The proposer therefore has the duty to disclose all material facts to the insurer. By this means the parties can be ad idem.
next -
Duty to Disclose