William's Legal Liability: William, as the proprietor of the restaurant and under the theory of premises responsibility, may have legal liability fo

Answer 1

William's Legal Liability: William, as the proprietor of the restaurant and under the theory of premises responsibility, may have legal liability for Bella's injury on the concept of premises liability. Premises liability holds property owners responsible for injuries that sustained on their property due to unsafe conditions or dangerous circumstances. In this case, several factors need consideration:

Foreseeability: If William has reasonable knowledge or should have known that there was a risk of harm associated and threat of detriment associated with the stairs, such as them being uneven, he may be held liable for failing to address this hazard.

Duty of Care: Bella and all other customers who are entering the restaurant are under Williams care as the owner. As the proprietor of the eatery, William owes a duty of care to patrons like Bella who enter the premises. This duty includes maintaining the premises in a nicely and reasonably safe condition and taking measures to prevent foreseeable harm.

Standard of Care : If the stairs were known to be uneven or otherwise hazardous, William should have taken ways to remedy the situation or at least advise guests/visitors about the peril. Whether or not William exercised reasonable care in maintaining the stairs would be examined. However, similar as regular examinations or repairs, he could be held liable If it's set up that he didn't take reasonable way to insure their safety.

Warning Signage: William placed a sign that clearly evident that the area beyond it was private and off-limits and not for public use. This could serve as a warning to patrons, including Bella, about the defined and restricted access.

Unsafe Stairs: The issue with the unsafe stairs, If the stairs were uneven and hazardous, William might be held responsible for not maintaining a safe environment, especially if he was apprehensive of the condition and didn't ensure a way to address it. Property owners have a duty to inspect their premises regularly and address any hazardous conditions.

Bella's Trespass: Bella ignored the warning sign and went upstairs despite it being marked as private. This can be considered trespassing as she deliberately entered a defined restricted area against the restaurant owner's instructions.

Contributory negligence: Bella's conduct in disregarding the warning sign could be considered contributory negligence. However, if it's determined that the sign was not sufficient to help foreseeable detriment or if Bella's actions were a reasonable response to a medical emergency, her contributory negligence might be eased or mitigated.

In conclusion, William may have some legal liability, especially if the stairs were unsafe, but Bella's trespassing could also be a factor in determining the extent of his responsibility and be a contributing factor to her injury.

(b) Tort committed by Paul: Paul committed the tort of Assault. In legal terms, assault always does not inescapably bear physical contact; it can be the purposeful creation of a reasonable apprehension or offensive contact and can also involve the deliberate development of a legitimate fear. Paul's conduct of shouting at Bella and raising his hand as if to hit her constitute an assault, indeed though he was restrained before actually striking her. His gesture created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm in Bella's mind, which satisfies the rudiments of assault. Hence In this case:

Verbal Threats/Pitfalls: Paul shouted and raised his hand as if to hit Bella. This action, along with the verbal threats, this constituted assault since it reasonably created a rational fear of physical harm conjunction with vernal threats.

Restraint by Customers: The fact that other customers had to restrain Paul indicates the inflexibility and severity of the situation and supports the claim of assault. With public feedback and opinion it would be difficult for Paul to prove it otherwise.

Civil Liability: Paul shouting at Bella and raising his hand as if to hit her created a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent physical harm. Even though Paul was restrained by other customers and did not actually make physical contact with Bella, his threatening behaviour still constitutes assault. This conduct could lead to civil liability for Paul and potential implicit criminal charges depending on the jurisdiction's laws.

Vicarious Liability : The restaurant owner can also be held liable for the tort committed by Paul, a waiter at the restaurant under the Vicarious Liability and the behaviour possibly attract bad name for the restaurant as well.

In summary, Paul committed the tort of assault by intentionally threatening physical harm to Bella, even if he was ultimately subdued and did not physically carry out the threat. His behaviour and gesture with the situation was completely unacceptable.

Answer 2

In this scenario, the central issue revolves around whether a legally valid and binding agreement was formed between Jack and Peter regarding the sale of the car. To determine the likelihood of Peter being successful in establishing such an agreement, several crucial legal principles need to be considered. The key legal concepts to consider are offer, acceptance, and communication of acceptance:

Offer and Acceptance:

Jack made an offer to sell his car to Peter for 5,000 on Monday.

Peter expressed his intention to consider the offer and said he would let Jack know later that day.

Communication of Acceptance:

Jack did not admit a timely response from Peter and assumed that Peter was not interested.

Jack, believing there was no acceptance, sold the car to Fred the next day.

Timing of Acceptance:

Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time unless a specific deadline is provided. If Peter's acceptance came after Jack had already sold the car to Fred, it might not be considered valid.

Late Communication:

Peter later sent a text message expressing acceptance and agreeing to buy the car for 5,000.

Jack discovered this message after he had already sold the car to Fred.

Legal Considerations:

In contract law, the general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror for a contract to be formed.

If Peter's acceptance was not communicated on time to Jack before he sold the car to Fred, there might not be a valid contract between Jack and Peter.

Timing of Acceptance:

If Peter's acceptance was sent after Jack had already sold the car to Fred, it may be considered a late acceptance.

The effectiveness of an acceptance sent after a lapse of time is dependent on whether the offer is still open or has been revoked or withdrawn.

Revocation of offer :

Revocation of Offer: An offer can be revoked/withdrawn before acceptance, but the revocation must be communicated to the offeree. If Jack was unaware of Peter's acceptance because he had not checked his phone or received the message due to a technical issue, then Peter's acceptance would still be valid unless Jack had revoked his offer before Peter accepted.

Reasonable Anticipation:

Jack might reasonably assume that Peter had not accepted the offer since he did not hear back from him by the end of the day, as promised. The terms of the agreement, namely the price (5,000) and the subject matter (the car), appear to be sufficiently certain.

Consideration:

For a contract to be valid, there must be consideration exchanged between the parties. In this case, the consideration would be the promise to pay 5,000 for the car.

Considering these principles:

Jack made an offer to sell his car to Peter for 5,000.

Peter's response was conditional and tentative; he said he would let Jack know later that day if he wanted to buy the car. This suggests that there was no immediate acceptance.

Jack did not receive Peter's acceptance until after he had already sold the car to Fred the next day.

There's no indication that Jack had promised to keep the offer open for a specified period, so it could be argued that the offer was revocable at any time before acceptance.

Peter's acceptance, communicated via text message, was made after the car had already been sold to Fred. Thus, it may not be considered a valid acceptance because it was made after the offer had been revoked through the sale to Fred.

Based on these points, Peter may face challenges in establishing that a binding agreement was reached between him and Jack. The timing of Peter's acceptance in relation to the sale of the car to Fred is pivotal and may weigh against Peter's claim. However, the final fortitude would depend on the specific facts of the case and applicable laws in the jurisdiction.

Answer 3

(a) Legal Relationship between Jane and Dennis:

The legal relationship between Jane and Dennis can be classified precisely as that of a principal and agent. In this relationship, Jane is the principal, and Dennis is the agent. An agent is someone who acts and negotiate on behalf of the principal, with the principal's authority, to negotiate and accomplish the principal's goals or objectives. Here, Jane sought advice from Dennis regarding assuring her classic car, and Dennis, by describing himself as an "Insurance Consultant," implied that he had expertise and is knowledgeable in this field and could assist Jane in obtaining insurance. Therefore, Dennis assumed the role of an agent, indicating Jane's interests in acquiring insurance coverage.

The legal relationship may be characterized as a client-advisor relationship, where Jane sought advice on insuring her classic car from Dennis.

(b) Legal Implications of Dennis' Failure to Check Details:

Duty of Care:

Dennis, as an 'Insurance Consultant,' owes Jane a duty of care to provide accurate, precise and reliable advice, especially when assisting with insurance related matters.

Standard of Care:

Dennis assured Jane that he would "treat her just the same as any other client." This creates an probability that he would exercise a reasonable standard of care in providing advice.

Imputed Knowledge:

In agency law, the knowledge and actions of an agent are often imputed to the principal and to be held accountbale. This means that any inaccuracies in the proposal form submitted by Dennis are considered as if Jane herself had provided them. Therefore, Jane may be held responsible for the inaccuracies, even though she did not directly provide them.

Proposal Form Inaccuracies:

Dennis's failure to check the details on the proposal form before transmitting it to AB Ltd resulted in inaccuracies. This could be seen as a breach of his duty of care and a failure to meet the standard of care expected of an insurance consultant.

Consequences of Inaccurate Information:

Inaccuracies in the proposal form can lead to severe consequences, such as the repudiation of Jane's claim by AB Ltd. Jane may suffer financial losses as a result of the failed claim.

Potential Liability:

Dennis may be held liable for any losses or damages suffered by Jane due to his negligence in failing to check and ensure the accuracy and preciseness of the information on the proposal form.

Professional Negligence:

Dennis, as an insurance consultant, may be held to a professional standard, and his failure to check the details could be considered professional negligence. This could result in legal consequences and potential liability.

In summary, Dennis' failure to check the details in the proposal form with Jane could have legal implications, including a breach of duty, professional negligence, and potential liability for any losses suffered by Jane as a result of the inaccuracies in the form.

Answer 4

(a) Validity of Insurance Policies:

(i) The Laptop Computer:

Likely not valid, Insurance policies for lost or found items typically require proof of ownership. Inga does not own the laptop, and it could be considered stolen property. One essential component of Insurable interest, a key element in insurance, is lacking. Without clear ownership of the laptop, it is unlikely that an insurer would issue a valid insurance policy to Inga.

(ii) The Life of Inga's Cleaner:

Potentially valid. Inga may have an insurable interest in her cleaner's life if she relies on the cleaner's income or services. However, if the cleaner is only a part-time cleaner and not a substantial source of income or support for Inga, the insurer may question the validity of the policy. If Inga has an insurable interest in her cleaner's life (e.g., dependency), and the mistake about full-time employment is not deliberate, the policy may be valid.

However as we have seen in Lucena v. Craufurd (1806) case, it might appear absolutely that someone will inherit the properties but until they actually do, its nothing more than an expectancy.

(iii) The Collection of Antique Silver:

Likely valid. Inga's interest in the antique silver collection may be valid for insurance intentions, especially if she is due to inherit it. As long as she has a legal interest in the collection, such as being the entitled heir, an insurance policy on the collection could be valid. Inga is due to inherit the silver, and she has an insurable interest in its protection.

(iv) The Life of Daisy:

Likely not valid. Inga must have an insurable interest in Daisy's life, if Daisy owes her a significant amount of money (7,000), and a debt alone might not be sufficient unless there is a financial dependency. However, the insurer may scrutinize the relationship between Inga and Daisy to ensure that the policy is not taken out solely for financial gain.

(b) Effect of Concealed Conviction:

The Insurance Act 2015 in the UK governs this situation. Inga's deliberate suppression of a previous conviction could render all policies voidable by the insurer.

Section 20 of the Insurance Act 2015 allows an insurer to avoid a policy if the insured makes a misrepresentation or fails to reveal a material fact with the intent to mislead the insurer.

The laptop computer: The concealed conviction may not directly affect the validity of the policy for the laptop computer, as it doesn't relate to the property being insured. However, if the insurer confronts the concealed conviction, they may question Inga's integrity and credibility, which could impact the overall validity and legitimacy of her insurance applications.

The life of Inga's cleaner: The concealed conviction may impact the validity of the policy for the life of Inga's cleaner. In many authorities, providing false or distorted information to an insurer can render the policy voidable under insurance law statutes.

The collection of antique silver: Similar to the laptop computer, the concealed conviction may not directly affect the validity of the policy for the antique silver collection. However, if the insurer discovers the concealed conviction, it could affect Inga's credibility and potentially lead to the voidability of the policy.

The life of Daisy: The concealed conviction may also impact the validity of the policy for Daisy's life. Providing false information to the insurer can void the policy under insurance law statutes.

One appropriate statute that addresses insurance fraud in the UK is the Fraud Act 2006. According to the Fraud Act 2006, Section 1, a person is guilty of fraud if they are deceptively making a false representation with the intent to make a gain for themselves or cause a loss to another. In this case, Inga's actions of concealing her previous conviction and providing false information to the insurer can be considered as making false representations with the intent to obtain insurance cover or benefits to which she is not entitled, which would constitute insurance fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.

Therefore, Inga's actions would be in violation of the Fraud Act 2006, and she could face legal consequences for committing insurance fraud.

The mistake regarding the cleaner's employment status may be substantial. If the insurer relied on this information to assess the risk and set the premium, it could affect the validity of the policy.

If the mistake is deemed material, the insurer might argue that it would not have issued the policy or would have done so on different terms if it had known the correct information.

The duty of utmost good faith, a elementary principle of insurance, requires the insured to provide accurate and honest information to the insurer.

Claim can be rejected due to incorrect information.

This may very well lead to more scrutiny on other policies or rejection of further issuance of policies.

In summary, the validity of the insurance policies depends on various factors, including insurable interest, intentional misrepresentation, and materiality of information. The Insurance Act 2015 plays a crucial role in determining the effect of the concealed conviction on the policies.

Top of Form

Question 5 Learning Outcome 6 (20 marks)

Answer 5

a) Validity of Liso's Claim for Theft:

Liso's failure to secure one of the ground floor windows, as required by the contents policy, may impact the validity of her claim. One relevant statute that supports this justification is the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 in the UK. Under this Act, policyholders have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer. This includes the duty to comply with policy conditions. In this case, if the household contents policy requires Liso to secure all ground floor windows when leaving the property, her failure to do so may constitute a breach of this condition. If the insurer can establish that the unsecured ground floor window was a material factor contributing to the theft of Liso's personal possessions, they may have grounds to reject or reduce Liso's claim. However, the insurer must also show that the condition regarding securing windows was clear and explicit in the policy.

The Insurance Act 2015 in the UK is relevant. Under Section 11, if the insured breaches a security condition without any connection to the loss, the insurer cannot rely on it to avoid the claim.

In this case, Liso's failure to secure the ground floor window is connected to the burglary, as it facilitated the theft. Therefore, the claim might still be valid despite the breach of the security condition.

One relevant statute that supports this is the principle of "Duty of Care" under common law. This principle requires individuals to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably cause harm to others or their property. In the context of insurance, failure to comply with policy restrictions, such as securing windows, could be considered a breach of this duty, potentially affecting the validity of the claim.

(b) Effect of Storing Fireworks on the Validity of the Contents Policy:

Liso's storage of fireworks in the rented property may affect the validity of her household contents policy. Most insurance policies contain provisions that exclude coverage for losses or damages resulting from illegal or prohibited activities. Storing fireworks in the property could be contemplated as a violation of the contents policy's prohibition against storing explosives.

The case of Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pine Top Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994) is relevant. If Liso's breach of the policy condition (storing fireworks) is causally connected to the loss (burglary or damage), the insurer may have grounds to deny the claim based on breach of policy conditions.

In Mason v Provident Insurance plc, the court held that the insured's breach of policy conditions could invalidate coverage for a claim. Storing fireworks in the property would likely be considered a breach of the policy's terms, notably if the policy prohibits the storage of explosives. This breach could give the insurer grounds to deny coverage for any damages or losses related to the fireworks, as they were stored in violation of the policy terms.

The validity of the claim for Carlo's furniture depends on the terms and conditions of the policy, specifically how it addresses damage to landlord-owned property.

The case of Castellain v Preston (1883) is relevant. If the policy covers damage to landlord's property, and there is no exclusion for abandonment or breach of policy conditions by the insured (Liso), then the claim for damage to Carlo's furniture may be valid.

However, if the policy excludes damage caused by the negligence of the insured, or if it explicitly excludes coverage for damage to property belonging to others, the claim might be denied.

In Green v The Sun Insurance Office Ltd, the court held that the insured's breach of policy conditions could invalidate coverage for a claim. If the household contents policy explicitly excludes coverage for damage to property owned by the landlord (Carlo), then Liso's claim for damage to Carlo's furniture may be denied by the insurer. However, if the policy does not contain such an exclusion and provides coverage for damage to the landlord's property, Liso's claim for Carlo's furniture may be valid, subject to any other policy conditions and eliminations.

In conclusion, the validity of Liso's claim for theft, the effect of storing fireworks on the contents policy, and the validity of the claim for Carlo's furniture depend on the specific terms and conditions of the policy, relevant statutes, and case law. The Insurance Act 2015 and relevant legal precedents play a crucial role in determining the outcome of these issues.

Top of Form

Question 6 Learning Outcome 7 (20 marks)

(a) Extent of Cover for Emergency Repair to Stop the Flood:

The policy's coverage for the emergency repair to stop the flood depends on whether the wear and tear exclusion applies. If wear and tear caused the flooding, Gino's claim might be denied.

In this case, the policyholder Gino hired an emergency plumber to stop the flood caused by wear and tear of a water pipe. Wear and tear is explicitly excluded from coverage under AB plc's household insurance policy. However, there may be coverage for the emergency repair to stop the flood if it is deemed necessary to alleviate further damage, even if the cause of the flood is excluded.

The case of BP Exploration Co. Ltd. v Chevron Transport Ltd. (1987) is relevant. In insurance, the proximate cause of loss is considered. If the immediate cause of the loss (the flooding) is a covered peril, even if the underlying cause (wear and tear) is excluded, the claim may be valid. The policy may cover the emergency repair as it addresses the pressing peril.

Another relevant case that supports this explanation is Horn v Commercial Union Assurance Co plc [2005] EWCA City 281. The court held that insurers were legally responsible to indemnify the insured for costs sustained in making emergency repairs to prevent further damage covered by the policy. Therefore, if Gino's household insurance policy with AB plc includes coverage for emergency repairs essential to prevent further damage covered by the policy, then AB plc would likely provide cover for the emergency plumber's fees to stop the flood. However, if wear and tear are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy, Gino may not be compensated for the repair costs associated with the wear and tear of the water pipe.

(b) Extent of Cover for Other Losses:

In reviewing the extent to which AB plc's policy provides cover for Gino's other losses resulting from the flooding in the cellar, it's important to take into consideration, the specific terms and conditions of the policy, as well as applicable legal principles.

Gino's claim for reimbursement includes several components:

Damage to the Cellar: The flooding caused extensive damage to the cellar, requiring repairs to the walls and possibly other structural components. Gino engaged various trade persons, including a plasterer, to carry out these repairs.

Loss of Vintage Wines: Gino asserts that the vintage wines stored in the cellar are now 'valueless' due to damage to their labels caused by the flood.

Damage labels: the labels on the vintage wines got extensively damage due to the flood making them almost valueless.

Regarding the damage to the cellar and the loss of vintage wines, coverage under AB plc's policy may be impacted by the exclusion of wear and tear as a peril. However, there are legal principles and case law that could affect the interpretation of the policy and the extent of coverage.

One relevant case to consider is "Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v. Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd" (1995). In this case, the court emphasized the principle that an insurer's liability is determined by the terms and conditions of the policy. If the policy explicitly covers certain types of losses or damages, the insurer may be liable for those losses, regardless of the cause.

In Gino's case, even though wear and tear is not considered a risk, if the policy provides coverage for damage caused by flooding, the insurer may be liable for the costs of repairing/restoring the cellar and any resulting loss of vintage wines, even if wear and tear is excluded as a peril. The key factor is whether the policy explicitly covers losses resulting from flooding, regardless of the cause.

However, Gino's failure to obtain receipts or invoices for payments made to the emergency plumber and other trade persons may present challenges in documenting and substantiating his claim. Insurers typically require proper documentation to process and validate claims, as it helps verify the nature and extent of the loss.

Therefore, while the policy may provide coverage for Gino's other losses resulting from the flooding, the lack of proper documentation may complicate the claims process and require further investigation by AB plc to determine the validity and extent of the claim.

To authorize settlement, the claims handler would need the following information from Gino:

Receipts or Invoices: For the emergency plumber and all other repair costs paid by cheque, providing receipts or invoices is crucial for verifying the expenses. While Gino did not obtain a receipt or invoice for the emergency plumber paid in cash, any documentation or confirmation from the plumber acknowledging the payment would be helpful to support his claim. Gino could show the bank statement as a proof of payment which would carry the substantial details.

Proof of Ownership: Gino should provide evidence of ownership for the vintage wines, such as receipts or citations showing the purchase or procurement of the wine collection.

Details of Damage: A widespread list of the damage and repair costs incurred, including costs related to the vintage wines.

Explanation of Cash Payment: Gino needs to provide a clear explanation for the cash payment to the emergency plumber and any other relevant details. Without a receipt, verification of the payment may be challenging.

Evidence of Vintage Wine Value: If claiming for the vintage wines, Gino would need to provide evidence of their value before the flood and substantiate the claim for 'valueless' status due to damaged labels.

In summary, the extent of coverage for the emergency repair and other losses depends on the policy terms, exclusions, and the specific circumstances. Providing detailed documentation and information is crucial for the claims handler to assess the validity of the claim.

Top of Form

Answer 7

(a) Extent of Cover for Each Claim: The extent of cover available for each of the client's claims under each of the insurance policies would depend on the specific terms and conditions of each policy. Let's explore the cover available for each car under their respective policies:

Classic Car (Agreed Value Policy):

The agreed value policy typically covers the vehicle for a pre-determined amount agreed upon by the insurer and the insured. In the event of a covered peril, such as a fire, the insurer is constrained to indemnify the insured for the agreed value, less any applicable deductibles.

Since the classic car upheld severe damage but is repairable, the insurer would likely cover the cost of repairs up to the agreed value specified in the policy.

The extent of cover for the classic car would include the repair costs for the acute damage encountered, up to the agreed value specified in the policy.

The client should carefully review the policy terms and conditions to ensure they understand any limitations or exclusions that may apply.

Five-Year-Old Sports Car (Standard Policy Wording):

A standard policy wording usually covers the cost of repairs for damages caused by covered perils, such as fire. However, the extent of cover may be subject to policy limits, deductibles, and depreciation considerations.

Since the sports car sustained minor damage, the insurer would likely cover the cost of repairs up to the policy's specified limits.

In this case, the extent of cover for the sports car would include the repair costs for the minor damage, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

Again, it's crucial for the client to review the policy details to understand any applicable deductibles or coverage limits.

New Family Car (Standard Policy Wording):

Standard policy wordings typically provide coverage for damage to the insured vehicle resulting from fire.

Similar to the five-year-old sports car, the standard policy wording for the new family car would include the repair costs for damages caused by the fire. However, since the family car is deemed a total loss, the insurer would in general pay out the market value of the car at the time of the loss, subject to policy terms.

he policy may also cover further expenses related to the loss, such as the cost of a rental car while the claim is being processed.

The client should ensure they provide all necessary documentation to support the claim, such as proof of ownership and evidence of the car's value.

Effect of a Claim on Policy Continuation: The effect a claim would have on the continuation of the motor insurance policy for each car is as follows:

Classic Car (Agreed Value Policy):

A claim on the agreed value policy for the classic car is likely to result in a payment for the repair costs. Generally, a single claim is less likely to impact the continuation of an agreed value policy broadly. However, frequent or substantial claims could lead to increased premiums upon renewal.

Once the classic car sustained severe damage but is repairable, the insurer would likely cover the cost of repairs up to the agreed value stated in the policy.

The policy may also cover supplementary expenses related to the repair process, such as towing or storage fees.

The client should precisely review the policy terms and conditions to ensure they understand any restrictions or exclusions that may apply.

Five-Year-Old Sports Car (Standard Policy Wording):

A claim on the standard policy for the sports car may impact the continuation of the policy. While one claim might not lead to policy cancellation, multiple claims or a high-cost claim might result in increased premiums at renewal. In extreme cases, the insurer may choose not to renew the policy.

The policy may also cover other damages resulting from the fire, such as damage to personal belongings inside the car.

Again, it's essential for the client to review the policy details to understand any applicable deductibles or coverage limits.

New Family Car (Standard Policy Wording):

The family car being declared a total loss may result in the insurer paying out the market value of the car. In such cases, the policy is usually terminated, and the insured receives the settlement. The insured would then need to obtain a new policy for a replacement vehicle.

Since the sports car sustained minor damage, the insurer would likely cover the cost of repairs up to the policy's specified limits.

The policy may also cover other fire related damages for personal belongings.

The insured still have to make sure that policy is has a full coverage keeping the deductible in mind.

In brief, the nature and frequency and the extent of cover for each claim depends on the specific policy type, and the effect on policy continuation varies based on the nature and frequency of claims. It's important for the insured to review the terms and conditions of each policy and consider the potential impact on premiums and policy renewal, the impact of a claim on the continuation of the motor insurance policy depends on the severity of the damage and the insurer's underwriting policies. Claims for minor damage may have minimal impact, while claims resulting in a total loss may lead to policy termination for the affected vehicle.

Top of Form

Question 8 Learning Outcome 9 (20 marks)

Answer 8

(a) Legal Entitlement for LD Ltd to Recover 1,000 from David: Subrogation is the principle that allows an insurer to step into the shoes of its insured and pursue recovery from third parties responsible for the loss or damage covered under the insurance policy. However, for subrogation to apply, the insurer must have fully indemnified the insured for their loss.

Unilateral Payment: Sam's payment of 1,000 to David was offered as a gesture of goodwill, without any obligation or agreement between LD Ltd and Sam. It was a unilateral act by Sam to compensate David for the inconvenience caused by the poor quality of the repairs.

No Subrogation: In insurance law, subrogation allows the insurer (LD Ltd) to step into the shoes of the insured (David) and pursue claims against third parties responsible for the loss. However, LD Ltd may only exercise subrogation rights if they have fully compensated the insured for their loss. In this case, LD Ltd has already paid for the repairs, but the 1,000 payment from Sam was separate and not related to the insurance claim.

No Assignment of Rights: Without an assignment of rights from David to LD Ltd, LD Ltd may not have a direct claim against Sam for the 1,000 payment. The payment was made directly to David, and there is no indication that David assigned his right to recover the 1,000 to LD Ltd.

Legal Principles of Restitution: LD Ltd could argue that David received the 1,000 unjustly and should therefore return it to LD Ltd since LD Ltd covered the cost of repairs. However, without a legal basis or agreement, this argument may not hold.

Overall, unless LD Ltd can determine a legal basis for recovering the 1,000 from Sam, such as through an assignment of rights or a subrogation clause in the insurance policy, they may not have a valid claim for the 1,000 payment.

(b) Extent of LD Ltd's Entitlement to Contribution from AX Ltd:

The entitlement of LD Ltd to receive a contribution from AX Ltd depends on the presence and explanation of non-contribution clauses in the respective policies.

Non-Contribution Clauses:

LD Ltd and AX Ltd both have non-contribution clauses in their policy wordings. These clauses typically state that if the insured has other insurance covering the same risk, the policies will not contribute together but will be primary and excess.

Effect of Non-Contribution Clauses:

LD Ltd seeking contribution from AX Ltd could be challenging if both policies have effective non-contribution clauses. In such cases, LD Ltd may have to cover the entire cost of the claim.

Legal Principle of Contribution:

Under the principle of contribution, where multiple insurance policies cover the same loss, each insurer contributes proportionately to the loss based on the extent of coverage provided. However, the non-contribution clauses may restrict this principle in this case.

Exception for Double Insurance:

There may be an exception if both policies have clauses addressing double insurance, where each insurer contributes proportionately. However, the effectiveness of such clauses would depend on the specific language used in the policies.

Good Faith and Disclosure:

The issue of dual insurance might also involve considerations of good faith and disclosure. If David did not disclose the existence of the other policy to either LD Ltd or AX Ltd, it could impact the insurers' positions.

Impact of David's Actions:

David's acceptance of 1,000 from Sam without informing LD Ltd may complicate matters. LD Ltd may argue that David's actions were not in good faith and may seek to recover the 1,000 from him. However, David's refusal to pay suggests a potential dispute that could affect LD Ltd's ability to recover from AX Ltd.

However, the outcome will depend on the interpretation of the insurance policies, the validity of the non-contribution clauses, and relevant legal principles.

Legal Recourse:

LD Ltd may consider legal action against AX Ltd to enforce contribution if they believe that AX Ltd's refusal to pay is unjustified. However, the outcome will depend on the explanation of the insurance policies and relevant legal principles.

Exhaustion of LD Ltd's Policy:

LD Ltd has already paid 17,000 for the repairs to David's car. If LD Ltd's policy has been exhausted, AX Ltd may have a duty to contribute towards the loss, subject to the terms of their policy.

The exhaustion of LD Ltd's policy could be a considerable argument for LD Ltd in seeking contribution from AX Ltd.

In conclusion, Given that both insurers have non-contribution clauses, LD Ltd's entitlement to receive a contribution from AX Ltd for the repairs is likely limited. AX Ltd has refused to pay, relying on their non-contribution clause. LD Ltd's attempt to seek contribution from AX Ltd may therefore be abortive, as the non-contribution clauses in both policies may prevent LD Ltd from pursuing contribution from AX Ltd. The legal entitlement of LD Ltd to recover 1,000 from David depends on the terms of their policy and the application of subrogation principles. The extent of LD Ltd's privilege to contribution from AX Ltd is influenced by the effectiveness of non-contribution clauses and any provisions addressing double insurance in the respective policies.

Top of Form

Answer 9

(a) Preventing Marcia from Setting Up a Rival Riding School:

Fiona may be able to prevent Marcia from setting up a rival riding school based on a valid non-compete clause in Marcia's employment contract.

The enforceability of non-compete clauses depends on reasonableness in scope, duration, and geographical constraint. A relevant case is Attwood v Lamont (1920), where the court upheld a restrictive covenant preventing an ex-employee from setting up a competing business within a specific geographical area and for a limited time.

The court upheld the importance of protecting the employer's business interests and enforced the restrictive covenant to prevent unfair competition.

Fiona may argue that Marcia's employment contract contains a valid restrictive covenant that forbids her from setting up a riding school in the next village. This provision put into effect by Fiona to stop Marcia from competing directly with her business and theoretically poaching clients or staff.

Fiona should review the non-compete clause in Marcia's contract to ensure it is reasonable, applicable to the situation and fits the circumstances.

Fiona may rely on the restrictive agreement in Marcia's employment contract to prevent her from setting up a rival riding school in the next village. However, the enforceability of the restrictive covenant would depend on factors such as its reasonableness, specificity, and geographical scope, as well as Marcia's role and responsibilities within the riding school. Fiona should consult legal advice to ensure that the restrictive covenant is enforceable and take appropriate legal action if Marcia attempts to breach it.

(b) Basis for Injured Child's Parents to Sue Marcia:

The injured child's parents may have a basis to sue Marcia for negligence. Negligence involves a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.

Marcia was manager at the time of the injury at the riding school, hence she has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the child.

Marcia should have maintained a standard of care and adhered to her duty all the while.

She should have abstained from distractions while on duty due to the personal issues.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) established the neighbour principle, emphasizing the duty of care owed to those directly affected by one's actions. In this landmark case, the House of Lords established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care owed by one person to another. The court held that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to ensure that their products are safe and free from defects. Similarly, Marcia owed a duty of care to the child participating in the riding lesson to ensure their safety.

Marcia's distraction and becoming sidetracked during the argument with Fiona, leading to unlawful fitting of the saddle, may constitute a breach of her duty of care. If this breach caused the child's injury, Marcia could be held liable.

Fiona may be vicariously liable for the child's injury if it occurred in the course of Marcia's employment and was closely connected to Marcia's duties.

Negligence occurs when someone breaches a duty of care owed to another, resulting in foreseeable harm. In this case, Marcia, as the manager of the riding school, owed a duty of care to ensure the safety of the children participating in the riding lessons.

The case that supports the basis for the injured child's parents to sue Marcia is Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. In this case, the claimant was injured when a cricket ball was hit out of a cricket ground and struck her while she was walking on a nearby road. The House of Lords held that the cricket club owed a duty of care to take reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents from occurring, even though the risk of injury was small. The court emphasized that the foreseeability of harm is an important factor in revealing whether a duty of care exists.

Another relevant case, The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001) clarified the scope of vicarious liability, stating that it extends to wrongful acts committed by an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the act and the employment.

Marcia's failure to fit a saddle appropriately on a horse during a riding lesson resulted in a child being seriously injured. This failure may be considered a breach of Marcia's duty of care owed to the child and other participants in the riding lesson. The injury to the child was foreseeable, given Marcia's role as the manager responsible for ensuring the safety of the riding school's activities.

If the improper fitting of the saddle occurred during a riding lesson, Fiona's riding school activities, and if Marcia was acting within the scope of her employment, Fiona may be vicariously liable.

The injured child's parents may have grounds to sue Marcia for negligence based on her failure to properly perform her duties, leading to the child's injury. Marcia's distracted state during the argument with Fiona does not absolve her of liability if her actions contributed to the accident and resulting harm.

(d) Avoiding Liability for Cancelled Bookings:

Fiona may attempt to avoid liability for cancelled bookings by reviewing the terms and conditions of her commercial insurance policies, principally the business interruption coverage.

If Fiona's policies include coverage for business interruption due to unforeseen events such as accidents or property damage, she may be able to claim for financial losses resulting from the closure of the riding school.

Fiona should document the reasons for the closure of the riding school and the cancellation of bookings, including any communications with the appropriate authorities, safety inspection reports, and medical records related to the child's injury. This documentation can serve as evidence to support Fiona's position that the closures were necessary due to unforeseen circumstances and were not the result of negligence or breach of duty on her part.

Fiona should promptly report the incident to her insurer, provide all necessary documentation, and follow the claims process brief in her policies.

The child and their parents must have suffered actual harm or damages as a result of Marcia's negligence. The child's serious injury, as described in the scenario, constitutes damages for which Marcia may be held liable.

In summary, A relevant case supporting the basis for the injured child's parents to sue Marcia for negligence is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In this landmark case, the House of Lords established the principle of duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers. Fiona may prevent Marcia from setting up a rival riding school through a valid non-compete clause. The injured child's parents may sue Marcia for negligence, and Fiona may be vicariously liable. Fiona's ability to avoid liability for revoked bookings depends on the coverage provided by her insurance policies.

Top of Form

Question 10 Across more than one Learning Outcome (30 marks)

(a.) The most likely tort that may have been committed by Aaeesha in relation to the noise made by the children is the tort of private nuisance. Private nuisance occurs when there is an unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of their land or property. In this case, Scott's complaint about the noise made by the children during the day suggests that Aaeesha's child-minding business may be causing a private nuisance to Scott, preventing him from working from home.

To establish a claim for private nuisance, Scott would need to demonstrate the following:

Substantial Interference: Scott must show that the noise made by the children during the day is substantial enough to restrict with his ability to work from home. The level of interference must be more than trivial.

Unreasonableness: Scott must prove that the interference caused by the noise is unreasonable. This involves considering factors such as the nature of the activity causing the interference, the sensitivity of Scott's use of his property, and the locality of the properties involved.

Foreseeability: Aaeesha must have been aware or reasonably should have been aware that her child-minding activities would cause a nuisance to Scott. Given the proximity of their properties and the nature of Aaeesha's business, it is foreseeable that noise from the children might disturb Scott's work.

Duration and Frequency: The duration and frequency of the noise may also be relevant factors in determining whether the interference is unreasonable.

Based on these elements, if Scott can establish that the noise made by the children during the day substantially interferes with his ability to work from home and that such interference is irrational, he may have grounds to claim that Aaeesha has committed the tort of private nuisance.

(b.) The most likely tort that may have been committed by Aaeesha in relation to the fire damage to Scott's outbuilding is the tort of negligence. Negligence occurs when there is a breach of a duty of care owed to another person, resulting in foreseeable harm. In this case, Aaeesha's lighting of an open fire in her garden created a foreseeable risk of harm to neighbouring properties, including Scott's outbuilding.

To establish a claim for negligence, Scott would need to demonstrate the following elements:

Duty of Care: Aaeesha owed a duty of care to her neighbours, including Scott, to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm resulting from her activities, such as lighting an open fire in her garden. This duty arises from the principle established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, where it was held that individuals owe a duty of care to their neighbours to prevent foreseeable harm.

Breach of Duty: Aaeesha breached her duty of care by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent sparks from escaping from the open fire and causing damage to neighbouring properties. The fact that strong winds caused the sparks to escape does not absolve Aaeesha of liability, as she should have projected the risk of such events occurring.

Causation: Aaeesha's breach of duty must have directly caused the fire damage to Scott's outbuilding. If it can be established that the fire was a direct result of sparks escaping from Aaeesha's open fire, then causation is satisfied.

Damage: Scott must have suffered actual damage as a result of the fire, which includes damage to his outbuilding and its contents, as well as any other consequential losses incurred.

Foreseeability: Aaeesha should have reasonably foreseen that her actions could lead to harm to neighbouring properties, including the risk of fire damage.

A relevant case supporting this explanation is Hale v Jennings Bros. [1938] 1 All ER 579. In this case, the defendant's bonfire ignited a nearby haystack, causing it to catch fire and spread to the plaintiff's property. The court held the defendant liable for negligence because the defendant failed to take realistic care in managing the bonfire, leading to the probable harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Based on these elements, if Scott can validate that Aaeesha failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire from occurring and that this failure directly caused the damage to his outbuilding, he may have grounds to claim that Aaeesha has committed the tort of negligence.

(c.) The false information provided by Scott regarding the extent of his injury to his hands and the contents of his outbuilding can knowingly impact his claim in several ways:

Diminished Credibility: Scott's credibility as a claimant is compromised due to his dishonesty. Courts and insurers rely on claimants to provide accurate and reliable information to assess the validity and extent of their claims. Scott's dishonesty undermines his credibility and casts doubt on the veracity of his entire claim.

Exposure to Fraudulent Claims: Scott's fabrication of injuries and expenses, such as physiotherapy sessions using fake invoices, constitutes fraudulent behavior. Insurance policies typically contain provisions that render null and void coverage or deny claims if the claimant engages in fraudulent activities. Scott's dishonest actions expose him to potential legal consequences and may lead to the rejection of his entire claim.

Potential Rejection of Claim: The provision of false information by Scott may lead to the rejection of his entire claim. Courts and insurers have the discretion to dismiss claims if claimants are found to have provided false or misleading information. Scott's dishonesty casts doubt on the authenticity of his claim and may result in its dismissal.

Reduction or Denial of Compensation: Scott's false information may result in a reduction or denial of compensation for his claim. Insurers have the right to investigate claims thoroughly, and upon determining fraudulent activities or misrepresentation by the claimant, they may reject the claim entirely or reduce the compensation amount to reflect the actual damages incurred.

Legal Consequences: Scott's submission of fake invoices for physiotherapy sessions constitutes fraud, which carries legal consequences. Fraudulent claims can lead to civil penalties, including the requirement to repay any wrongfully obtained benefits or compensation. Additionally, criminal charges may be pursued against individuals who engage in insurance fraud.

A relevant case supporting this explanation is Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1. In this case, the House of Lords held that a claimant's fraudulent misrepresentation or suppression of material facts can invalidate an insurance claim. The court emphasized the importance of good faith and honesty in insurance contracts and ruled in favor of the insurer due to the claimant's fraudulent conduct.

Another relevant case supporting this explanation is AXA Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 1330. In this case, the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of honesty and integrity in insurance claims. The court held that fraudulent behavior undermines the integrity of the insurance system and may result in severe consequences for the claimant, including the rejection of the claim and potential legal action.

Therefore, Scott's false information regarding his injury and expenses undermines the integrity of his claim and may lead to the rejection or reduction of his compensation by the insurer.

(d.) In Scott's claim against Aaeesha, the burden of proof and the standard of proof play crucial roles in determining the validity of his claim and the extent of compensation he may receive.

Burden of Proof: The burden of proof refers to the responsibility placed on the claimant to prove the allegations or assertions made in their claim. In this case, Scott bears the burden of proving that Aaeesha's actions or negligence caused the damages he suffered, including the cost of hiring office space, fire damage to the outbuilding, and his injuries.

Standard of Proof: The standard of proof refers to the level of certainty or persuasion required for the claimant to succeed in proving their case. In civil cases like this, the standard of proof is generally on the balance of probabilities. This means that Scott must establish that it is more likely than not that Aaeesha's actions or negligence caused the harm he suffered.

Justification:

Scott must provide evidence to support his claim that Aaeesha's child-minding activities, including the noise from the children, directly contributed to his inability to work from home, leading to the necessity of hiring office space. He must also demonstrate that the sparks from Aaeesha's open fire caused the fire damage to his outbuilding and the subsequent injuries to his hands.

However, with the discovery that Scott lied about the extent of his injuries and submitted fake invoices for physiotherapy sessions, the burden and standard of proof shift. The insurer may now question the credibility of Scott's entire claim. Scott's dishonesty undermines his credibility, and the insurer may require a higher standard of proof to establish the validity of any remaining aspects of his claim, if any.

In summary, Scott bears the initial burden of proving his claim against Aaeesha, and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. However, Scott's dishonesty may raise doubts about the credibility of his claim and may necessitate a higher standard of proof for any remaining aspects of his claim.

Top of Form

Coursework submission rules and important notes

Before you start your assignment, it is essential that you familiarise yourself with the information in the Coursework Support Centre available on Revision Mate.

This includes the following information:

These questions must not be provided to, or discussed with, any other person regardless of whether they are another candidate or not. If you are found to have breached this rule, disciplinary action may be taken against you.

Important rules relating to referencing all sources including the study text, regulations and citing statute and case law.

Penalties for contravention of the rules relating to plagiarism and collaboration.

Coursework marking criteria applied by markers to submitted answers.

Deadlines for submission of coursework answers.

You must not include your name or CII PIN anywhere in your answer.

The total marks available are 200. You need to obtain 120 marks to pass this assignment.

Your answer must be submitted on the correct answer template in Arial font, size 11.

Answers to a coursework assignment should be a maximum of 12,000 words. The word count does not include diagrams however, it does include text and numbers contained within any tables you choose to use. The word count does not include referencing or supplementary material in appendices. Please be aware that at the point an assignment exceeds the word count by more than 10% the examiner will stop marking.

Top tips for answering coursework assignmentsRead the Specimen coursework assignment and answer for this unit, available on the unit webpage.

Read the Learning Outcome(s) and related study text chapter for each question before answering it.

Ensure your answer reflects the context of the question. Your answer must be based on the figures and/or information used in the question.

Ensure you answer all questions.

Address all the issues raised in each question.

Do not group question parts together in your answer. If there are parts (a) and (b), answer them separately.

Where a question requires you to address several items, the marks available for each item are equally weighted. For example, if 4 items are required and the question is worth 12 marks, each item is worth 3 marks.

Ensure that the length and breadth of each answer matches the maximum marks available. For example, a 30-mark question requires more breadth than a 10 or 20 mark question.

Additional M05 coursework tips

It is recommended that you take the following four-step approach when planning an answer to an M05 question:

Step One: Identify which area(s) of the law the question is testing and link it back to the correct Learning Outcome(s).

Step Two: Explain how the relevant area(s) of the law, in outline, may relate to the context set out in the question. Identify relevant statute and case law. When quoting law, focus on the ratio decidendi rather than the general facts of the case.

For further information see chapter 1 of the M05 Study text.

Step Three: Apply the relevant principles of the law, including statute and case law, to the question.

Step Four: Include in your answer a conclusion which directly links back to the question and relevant area(s) of the law.

The coursework questions link to the Learning Outcomes shown on the M05 syllabus as follows:

Question Learning Outcome(s) Chapter(s) in the Study Text Maximum marks per answer

1 Learning Outcome 2 Chapter 2 10 marks

2 Learning Outcome 3 Chapter 3 10 marks

3 Learning Outcome 4 Chapter 4 10 marks

4 Learning Outcome 5 Chapters 3 & 5 & 6 30 marks

5 Learning Outcome 6 Chapters 3 & 7 20 marks

6 Learning Outcome 7 Chapter 8 20 marks

7 Learning Outcome 8 Chapter 9 20 marks

8 Learning Outcome 9 Chapter 10 20 marks

9 Across more than one Learning Outcome Across more than one chapter 30 marks

10 Across more than one Learning Outcome Across more than one chapter 30 marks

To be completed before submission:

Word count: 8862

Start typing your answer here:

Question 1 Learning Outcome 2 (10 marks)

William's Legal Liability: Based on the principle of occupiers liability, William has the responsibility to ensure that the premise of the restaurant is free from defect that has the potential to inflict injury and harm on the visitors. Occupiers liability holds property owners responsible for injuries that sustained on their property due to unsafe conditions or dangerous circumstances. However, there are several factors that need to establish in order to impose liability on the occupier.

Warning Signage: William placed a sign that is clearly evident that the area beyond it was private and off-limits and not for public use. This could serve as a warning to patrons, including Bella, about the defined and restricted access.

(b) Tort committed by Paul: Paul committed the tort of Assault. In legal terms, assault always does not inescapably bear physical contact; it can be the purposeful creation of a reasonable apprehension or offensive contact and can also involve the deliberate development of a legitimate fear. Paul's conduct of shouting at Bella and raising his hand as if to hit her constitute an assault, indeed though he was restrained before striking her. His gesture created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm in Bella's mind, which satisfies the rudiments of assault. Hence In this case:

Restraint by Customers: The fact that other customers had to restrain Paul indicates the inflexibility and severity of the situation and supports the claim of assault. With public feedback and opinion, it would be difficult for Paul to prove it otherwise.

Question 2 Learning Outcome 3 (10 marks)

Offer and Acceptance:

Jack made an offer to sell his car to Peter for 5,000 on Monday.

Peter expressed his intention to consider the offer and said he would let Jack know later that day.

Communication of Acceptance:

Jack did not admit a timely response from Peter and assumed that Peter was not interested.

Jack, believing there was no acceptance, sold the car to Fred the next day.

Timing of Acceptance:

Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time unless a specific deadline is provided. If Peter's acceptance came after Jack had already sold the car to Fred, it might not be considered valid.

Late Communication:

Peter later sent a text message expressing acceptance and agreeing to buy the car for 5,000.

Jack discovered this message after he had already sold the car to Fred.

Legal Considerations:

In contract law, the general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror for a contract to be formed.

If Peter's acceptance was not communicated on time to Jack before he sold the car to Fred, there might not be a valid contract between Jack and Peter.

Timing of Acceptance:

If Peter's acceptance was sent after Jack had already sold the car to Fred, it may be considered a late acceptance.

The effectiveness of an acceptance sent after a lapse of time is dependent on whether the offer is still open or has been revoked or withdrawn.

Revocation of offer :

Reasonable Anticipation:

Consideration:

For a contract to be valid, there must be consideration exchanged between the parties. In this case, the consideration would be the promise to pay 5,000 for the car.

Considering these principles:

Jack made an offer to sell his car to Peter for 5,000.

Peter's response was conditional and tentative; he said he would let Jack know later that day if he wanted to buy the car. This suggests that there was no immediate acceptance.

Jack did not receive Peter's acceptance until after he had already sold the car to Fred the next day.

There's no indication that Jack had promised to keep the offer open for a specified period, so it could be argued that the offer was revocable at any time before acceptance.

Question 3 Learning Outcome 4 (10 marks)

(a) Legal Relationship between Jane and Dennis:

The legal relationship may be characterized as a client-advisor relationship, where Jane sought advice on insuring her classic car from Dennis.

(b) Legal Implications of Dennis' Failure to Check Details:

Duty of Care:

Dennis, as an 'Insurance Consultant,' owes Jane a duty of care to provide accurate, precise and reliable advice, especially when assisting with insurance related matters.

Standard of Care:

Dennis assured Jane that he would "treat her just the same as any other client." This creates a probability that he would exercise a reasonable standard of care in providing advice.

Imputed Knowledge:

In agency law, the knowledge and actions of an agent are often imputed to the principal and to be held accountable. This means that any inaccuracies in the proposal form submitted by Dennis are considered as if Jane herself had provided them. Hence, it means that Jane can be made vicariously responsible for the inaccurate work of Dennis even though Jane did not herself commit the fault.

Proposal Form Inaccuracies:

It was a failure on part of Dennis since she should have checked the details of the proposal form before giving it to AB Ltd. If Dennis took reasonable care, it would not have resulted to the inaccuracies. Such an instance logically implies that it was Denniss failure to comply with professional standard of care expected from insurance consultants.

Consequences of Inaccurate Information:

Inaccuracies due to professional negligence and lack of care has the potential to face several consequences. One of the most severe consequences is the failure of Jane to claim from AB Ltd due to repudiation. As a result, it is Jane who has to bear the cost of repairing the damage to the car.

Potential Liability:

Although Jane might have liability against third party for the acts of Dennis based on imputed knowledge, however, it is Dennis on whom liability can be imposed for the losses inflicted on Jane. Such an incident occurred directly because of the professional failure of Dennis who did not check and ensure that all the details on the proposal form are not correct.

Professional Negligence:

Due to the professional failure of Dennis, there was a huge gap left because of which Jane is not able to make an insurance claim which means that the liability of Dennis is for failing to meet the professional standard. And failure to comply with professional standard has legal consequences especially where negligence is involved.

Based on the above discussion of all the factors, it can be summarized by saying that Dennis failure to meet with the professional standard is the reason Jane is unable to make a claim from AB Ltd. It shows a breach of duty of care leading to losses suffered by Jane which very reasonably established professional negligence.

Question 4 Learning Outcome 5 (30 marks)Top of Form

(a) Validity of Insurance Policies:

(i) The Laptop Computer:

In order to claim insurance, it is essential to have insurable interest and also establish the same. Based on that the claim is Inga is not valid since a claim of insurance policy for lost or found items would require a proof that the claimant has the ownership. Since Inga does not own the laptop, it is highly likely that it would be considered as stolen since Inga cannot show insurable interest.

(ii) The Life of Inga's Cleaner:

However as we have seen in Lucena v. Craufurd (1806) case, it might appear absolutely that someone will inherit the properties but until they actually do, its nothing more than an expectancy.

(iii) The Collection of Antique Silver:

(iv) The Life of Daisy:

(b) Effect of Concealed Conviction:

The Insurance Act 2015 in the UK governs this situation. Inga's deliberate suppression of a previous conviction could render all policies voidable by the insurer.

Section 20 of the Insurance Act 2015 allows an insurer to avoid a policy if the insured makes a misrepresentation or fails to reveal a material fact with the intent to mislead the insurer.

The life of Daisy: The concealed conviction may also impact the validity of the policy for Daisy's life. Providing false information to the insurer can void the policy under insurance law statutes.

Therefore, Inga's actions would be in violation of the Fraud Act 2006, and she could face legal consequences for committing insurance fraud.

The mistake regarding the cleaner's employment status may be substantial. If the insurer relied on this information to assess the risk and set the premium, it could affect the validity of the policy.

If the mistake is deemed material, the insurer might argue that it would not have issued the policy or would have done so on different terms if it had known the correct information.

The duty of utmost good faith, a elementary principle of insurance, requires the insured to provide accurate and honest information to the insurer.

Claim can be rejected due to incorrect information.

This may very well lead to more scrutiny on other policies or rejection of further issuance of policies.

Top of Form

Question 5 Learning Outcome 6 (20 marks)Top of Form

a) Validity of Liso's Claim for Theft:

Liso's failure to secure one of the ground floor windows, as required by the contents policy, may impact the validity of her claim. One relevant statute that supports this justification is the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 in the UK. Under this Act, policyholders have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer including a duty to comply with all the conditions given in a policy. In the given situation, Liso was required to secure all the windows in the ground floor failure of which would result to a breach of the aforementioned condition. Hence, if the insurer or the insurance company can establish that unsecured windows of the ground floor was the reason which for the theft occurred, the insurer might be able to avoid paying the claim. But, it is also true that in order to avoid paying the claim, the insurer has to establish that such a condition is explicitly contained in the insurance contract.

In the UK, The Insurance Act 2015 is the relevant legislation guiding the insurance sector. To be more specific, section 11 of the Act states that a breach of security condition by the insured that does not have directly impact on the loss suffered, cannot be used as a ground by the insurer to avoid paying the claim. This is because causal connection is necessary to prove contribution towards the loss from the insured.

In the given situation, there is sufficient causal connection between the failure of Liso to secure the ground floor windows and the theft a reasonable person would believe that the theft would not have occurred if the ground floor windows were secured by Liso.

The principle of duty of care is the most important and relevant common law principle in this regard. Under this principle, a person owes a duty of care to any other person who can suffer harm due to the negligent acts and omissions of the person who owed duty of care. Moreover, the harm suffered by the victim has to be reasonably foreseeable in order to owe a duty of care. In the context of insurance, failure to comply with policy restrictions, such as securing windows, could be considered a breach of this duty, potentially affecting the validity of the claim.

(b) Effect of Storing Fireworks on the Validity of the Contents Policy:

The validity of the claim for Carlo's furniture depends on the terms and conditions of the policy, specifically how it addresses damage to landlord-owned property.

On the contrary, in case the policy includes a clause that excludes damages that are caused by the negligence of the insured, the insurer might be able to deny the claim.

In the case of Green v The Sun Insurance Office Ltd, it was decided that in case the insured breaches the conditions of the policy, it has the potential to invalidate the claim. Hence, if the policy in the given situation excludes coverage for damage to property, then a claim by Liso might be rejected. However, in case the policy does not contain such an exclusion, it is possible that Liso can claim for the damage to Carlos furniture.

To summarise, the validity of the claim made by Liso based on theft and validity of the claim would depend on the terms and conditions of the policy.

Top of Form

Question 6 Learning Outcome 7 (20 marks)

(a) Extent of Cover for Emergency Repair to Stop the Flood:

The policy's coverage for the emergency repair to stop the flood depends on whether the wear and tear exclusion applies. If wear and tear caused the flooding, Gino's claim might be denied.

(b) Extent of Cover for Other Losses:

Gino's claim for reimbursement includes several components:

Loss of Vintage Wines: Gino asserts that the vintage wines stored in the cellar are now 'valueless' due to damage to their labels caused by the flood.

Damage labels: the labels on the vintage wines got extensively damage due to the flood making them almost valueless.

To authorize settlement, the claims handler would need the following information from Gino:

Receipts or Invoices: For the emergency plumber and all other repair costs paid by cheque, providing receipts or invoices is crucial for verifying the expenses. Since Gino cannot show any documented evidence that the plumber was paid in cash is the primary issue. Any documentation to show that the plumber was paid in cash might help in supporting the claim. Any document would not only show the bank but also the insurer about the expenses incurred.

Proof of Ownership: Gino has to necessarily produce evidence of the fact that the vintage wines are owned since such evidence in the form of purchase receipts show the source of procurement and authentic enough for the insurer.

Details of Damage: A detailed explanation of damages and list of repair cost.

Explanation of Cash Payment: Gino is required to provide why cash payment was made and get some evidence to establish that case payment was made since the absence of any receipt or proof might be challenging to make a claim.

Evidence of Vintage Wine Value: As the claim is made for the vintage wine, there is also a need to show and produce evidence about the true value of the vintage wines. The value of the matter for which a claim is made has to be substantiated.

Therefore, to summarise, what the policy will cover and how much claim can be made is dependent on the policy and its conditions. Every piece of evidence will be assessed by the policy handler to evaluate the validity of the claim.

Top of Form

Question 7 Learning Outcome 8 (20 marks)

Classic Car (Agreed Value Policy):

The agreed value policy typically covers the vehicle for a pre-determined amount agreed upon by the insurer and the insured. When sudden perils like fire which follows damage to the insured property, the insurer has the duty to assess the situation and indemnity the insured for the agreed value as per the policy condition. Since the amount is agreed expressly in the policy, the insurer has to ensure that the agreed claim is paid after making any applicable deductions.

Now when it comes to the classic car, it has suffered severe damage which implies a condition that can be repaired. In such a situation, the insurer is likely to cover the cost required to repair the car to the position where it would have been if the fire did not break out. Such cost of repairs would be limited to the agreed value.

The cover for the classic car includes the cost of repairs for the damage suffered which cannot be more than the agreed price mentioned in the policy.

For this reason, it is important for the insured to review and understand all the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which will give them a fair idea on the exclusions offered by the policy.

Five-Year-Old Sports Car (Standard Policy Wording):

A standard policy wording generally pays for the repair cost required to rectify the condition of the car that has been adversely affected by the sudden fire. But the policy also includes a few limitations and scope for deduction for the insurer.

Due to the fact that the sports car did not suffer any major damage, it is most likelt that the insurer would pay for cost needed to repair the car.

As per the given situation, the cover sought for the sports car would most probably include repairing cost since the damage is minor in nature, but it is also subject to all the conditions of the policy.

New Family Car (Standard Policy Wording):

Standard policy wordings would generally pay for the damages caused to the insured car as s result of fire.

Since the damage is not minor and rather the car was completely damaged means that the insurer has to cover for the maximum value which is also limited to the amount specified in the policy.

Such a policy can also cover for any other related expenses that the owner may have incurred in the process.

In this regard, it is necessary for the insured to provide all the relevant documents and evidence required to substantiate the claim.

Effect of a Claim on Policy Continuation: The effect a claim would have on the continuation of the motor insurance policy for each car is as follows:

Classic Car (Agreed Value Policy):

It is very likely that a claim made for the classic car under the agreed value policy would result to a pay for the cost of repairs. A single claim under this policy would not impact the continuation of the policy, however, the amount for the next claim might vary depending upon how much of the agreed value has been exhausted and might require greater premium at the time of policy renewal.

Based on the policy coverage, any other related expenses like towing cost and sotrage cost would also be covered under the purview of repair cost.

To ensure a successful claim further, the insured must review all the policies and understand the limitations.

Five-Year-Old Sports Car (Standard Policy Wording):

Since the claim for the sports car under the standard policy wording would amount to maximum possible pay, it may affect the continuation of the policy. In this regard lack of continuation does not mean termination of the policy but rather means the insured will have to pay a higher premium upon renewal.

The policy also covers related expenses.

Again, it is essential for the insured to review and understand every clause of the policy.

New Family Car (Standard Policy Wording):

Since the sports car sustained minor damage, the insurer would likely cover the cost of repairs up to the policy's specified limits.

The policy may also cover other fire related damages for personal belongings.

The insured still have to make sure that policy is has a full coverage keeping the deductible in mind.

Question 8 Learning Outcome 9 (20 marks)

Answer 8

Unilateral Payment: The payment made by Sam to David was done based on a gesture of goodwill rather than any legal or formal agreement. This denotes that the payment was a unilateral conduct by Sam who intended to compensate David for the poor-quality service.

No Subrogation: Subrogation in the insurance industry allow the insurer to be in the position of the insured and make claim from third parties. In this regard, LD Ltd can only claim subrogation only if they fully compensate the insured for the damaged car. In this case, LD Ltd has already paid for the repairs, but the 1,000 payment from Sam was separate and not related to the insurance claim.

(b) Extent of LD Ltd's Entitlement to Contribution from AX Ltd:

The entitlement of LD Ltd to receive a contribution from AX Ltd depends on the presence and explanation of non-contribution clauses in the respective policies.

Non-Contribution Clauses:

Effect of Non-Contribution Clauses:

LD Ltd seeking contribution from AX Ltd could be challenging if both policies have effective non-contribution clauses. In such cases, LD Ltd may have to cover the entire cost of the claim.

Legal Principle of Contribution:

Exception for Double Insurance:

Good Faith and Disclosure:

Impact of David's Actions:

However, the outcome will depend on the interpretation of the insurance policies, the validity of the non-contribution clauses, and relevant legal principles.

Legal Recourse:

Exhaustion of LD Ltd's Policy:

LD Ltd has already paid 17,000 for the repairs to David's car. If LD Ltd's policy has been exhausted, AX Ltd may have a duty to contribute towards the loss, subject to the terms of their policy.

The exhaustion of LD Ltd's policy could be a considerable argument for LD Ltd in seeking contribution from AX Ltd.

Top of Form

Question 9 Across more than one Learning Outcome (30 marks)

(a) Preventing Marcia from Setting Up a Rival Riding School:

Fiona may be able to prevent Marcia from setting up a rival riding school based on a valid non-compete clause in Marcia's employment contract.

The court upheld the importance of protecting the employer's business interests and enforced the restrictive covenant to prevent unfair competition.

Fiona should review the non-compete clause in Marcia's contract to ensure it is reasonable, applicable to the situation and fits the circumstances.

It is possible for Fiona to rely on the restrictive agreement contained in the employment contract of Marcia in order to prevent her from competing with another school in another village. However, the extent to which it can be enforced would depend on several factors. And for this reason Fiona should consult legal advice to ensure that the restrictive covenant is enforceable and take appropriate legal action if Marcia attempts to breach it.

(b) Basis for Injured Child's Parents to Sue Marcia:

The injured child's parents may have a basis to sue Marcia for negligence. Negligence involves a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.

Marcia was manager at the time of the injury at the riding school, hence she has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the child.

Marcia should have maintained a standard of care and adhered to her duty all the while.

She should have abstained from distractions while on duty due to the personal issues.

Fiona may be vicariously liable for the child's injury if it occurred in the course of Marcia's employment and was closely connected to Marcia's duties.

In this case, Marcia, as the manager of the riding school, owed a duty of care to ensure the safety of the children participating in the riding lessons.

It was the a failure on Marcias part to fit the saddle properly which as a result caused serious injury to the child. Such a failure can be considered a breach of duty of care by Marcia which is owed to all the participants. It is reasonably foreseeable that any negligence and mistake of Marcia is likely to cause injury.

Since the injury occurred from improper fitting done during the course of employment of Marcia for Fiona, Fiona would have vicarious liability for the wrongful acts of Marcia.

Based on this, the parents of the injured child are entitled to sue Fiona for the injuries inflicted due to the negligence of Marcia.

(d) Avoiding Liability for Cancelled Bookings:

The business interruption coverage may be used by Fiona to try and avoid the liability imposed for cancelled bookings. For this reason, Fiona must review the terms and conditions of the policy.

If the business interruption occurs due to unforeseen incidents, the policy of Fiona can cover for the any damage caused to the property and resulting loss. This can help Fiona to prevent the closure of the school.

For this reason, it is essential for Fiona to be able to substantiate the reasons for te closure through documented evidence including any communication done with the safety inspection authorities and reports. Such a documentation can help Fiona to establish that the situation was not foreseeable and that closure of the school was necessary which might collectively prevent a breach of duty of care.

Subsequently, it is essential for Fiona to notify the same to the insurer and provide all the necessary documentation or evidence that might be necessary for the insurer to release the claim.

Top of Form

Question 10 Across more than one Learning Outcome (30 marks)

To establish a claim for private nuisance, Scott would need to demonstrate the following:

Foreseeability: Aaeesha must have been aware or reasonably should have been aware that her child-minding activities would cause a nuisance to Scott. Considering the proximity of the property and Aaeeshas business activities, it is foreseeable for a reasonable person to believe that Scott might get disturbed.

Based on all the above elements, it is important to that Scott establish that the disturbance from the noise from the children has significant impact on the everyday work and such interference is not justified and it amounts to nuisance.

(b.) The tort committed by Aaeesha regarding the fire damage suffered by Scott is because of negligence. It occurred because Aaeesha breached her duty of care to another person since the harm was foreseeable for a reasonable person.

Now in order to successfully claim compensation due to negligence, it is important for Scott to establish that all the following factors have been satisfied:

Duty of Care: It is essential to show that Aaeesha owed a duty of care based on the principles established by Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. As per this decision, Aaseesha owes a duty of care to any person who can get affected by negligence acts or omissions of Aaeesha.

Breach of Duty: A failure to comply with the duty of care and failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to others amounts to breach. Aaeeshs failed to take all the precautions required to prevent spread of fire that can cause damage to others. Strong wind does not excuse Aaeesha from her liability since her conduct exposed others to huge risk.

Causation: For a claim of negligence, it is essential to have connection between the damage caused and the breach of duty. In this regard, it was Aaeeshs breach of duty which was directly responsible for the damage suffered by Scott which implies causation connection.

Damage: Scott must have suffered actual damage as a result of the fire, which includes damage to his outbuilding and its contents, as well as any other consequential losses incurred.

Foreseeability: Aaeesha should have reasonably foreseen that her actions could lead to harm to neighbouring properties, including the risk of fire damage.

(c.) The false information provided by Scott regarding the extent of his injury to his hands and the contents of his outbuilding can knowingly impact his claim in several ways:

Exposure to Fraudulent Claims: Scott's fabrication of injuries and expenses, such as physiotherapy sessions using fake invoices, constitutes fraudulent behaviour. Most insurance policies contain clause that can deny claims in case of fraudulent conduct. Hence, it was Scotts dishonest actions that triggered the exposure.

Potential Rejection of Claim: Any false or dishonest information from Scott has the potential to rejection of claim. When claimants are found to be dishonest, judicial authorities would favour the insurer.

Reduction or Denial of Compensation: The fact that Scott gave false information has the potential to get his claim reduced or even denied. The insurer for any suspicion is entitled to investigate into the matter and identify any misrepresentation from the insured.

Legal Consequences: Submission of fake invoices by Scott can potentially lead to rejection of claim and in addition civil penalties for misrepresentation. Scott might have to compensation the insurance company for insurance fraud.

The above position can be supported by the precedent set by the decision of Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 where the court held that any misrepresentation, suppression of relevant information and fraud can invalidate the insurance claim altogether. This is because utmost good faith is important for any insurance contract. In this regard utmost good faith is all about disclosure and honesty from both the sides. A support for this position can also be seen from the decision of AXA Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 where the court held that honesty and integrity are the most important pillars of an insurance contract. Hence at the time of claims, fraudulent activities can amount to complete rejectin of claim. Therefore, it can be said that false information provided by Scott decreases the integrity of this claim and hence is entitled to be rejected.

(d.) In the claim of Scott against Aaeesha, the most important role played by is the evidence. It includes the burden and the standard of proof required to substantiate the claim of Scott.

Burden of Proof: The claimant bears the task of substantiating the accusations or statements stated in their claim, which is known as the burden of evidence. Scott must demonstrate that Aaeesha's acts or carelessness resulted in the losses he experienced, such as the expense of leasing office space, the outbuilding's fire damage, and his injuries.

Standard of Proof: The degree of conviction or certainty needed for the claimant to successfully prove their case is referred to as the standard of proof. The burden of proof in civil lawsuits such as this one is usually the balance of probability. This implies that Scott has to prove that there is a greater likelihood than not that Aaeesha's behavior or carelessness led to the injury he sustained.

Justification:

For all the above purposes, it is necessary for Scott to provide evidence to support his claim against Aaeesha on nuisance. He also has to show that the spark from the open fire was the direct cause of the property damage. However, since Scott made some significant misrepresentation which undermines the credibility of Scott to make a successful claim. For this reason, it is upon Scott to prove his claim since on balance of probabilities, Scott has to establish his claim based on the burden of showing evidence on him. In this regard, dishonesty from Scott may affect the standard of proof required and can have adverse impact on the other aspects of the claim. Referencing must be completed before submissionAll sources must be referenced in the body of your answer as well as in your reference list. See the Specimen coursework assignment and answer for examples of how to reference correctly in text and in your reference list.

References

CII Insurance Law M05

Lucena v. Craufurd (1806)

The Insurance Act 2015

Fraud Act 2006.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012

Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pine Top Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994)

Mason v Provident Insurance plc

Castellain v Preston (1883)

Green v The Sun Insurance Office Ltd

BP Exploration Co. Ltd. v Chevron Transport Ltd. (1987)

Horn v Commercial Union Assurance Co plc [2005] EWCA Civ 281

Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v. Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd" (1995)

Attwood v Lamont (1920)

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001)

Hale v Jennings Bros. [1938] 1 All ER 579

Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1.

AXA Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 1330

Glossary of key words

Analyse

Find the relevant facts and examine these in depth. Examine the relationship between various facts and make conclusions or recommendations.

Construct

To build or make something; construct a table.

Describe

Give an account in words (someone or something) including all relevant characteristics, qualities or events.

Devise

To plan or create a method, procedure or system.

Discuss

To consider something in detail; examining the different ideas and opinions about something, for example to weigh up alternative views.

Explain

To make something clear and easy to understand with reasoning and/or justification.

Identify

Recognise and name.

Justify

Support an argument or conclusion. Prove or show grounds for a decision.

Outline

Give a general description briefly showing the essential features.

Recommend with reasonsProvide reasons in favour.

State

Express main points in brief, clear form.

Download Solution Now

Uploaded By : Pooja Dhaka
Posted on : January 03rd, 2025
Downloads : 0
Views : 151

William's Legal Liability: William, as the proprietor of the restaurant and under the theory of premises responsibility, may have legal liability fo

Download Solution Now

Download Solution Now

Choose a Plan

Premium

Gold

Silver

William's Legal Liability: William, as the proprietor of the restaurant and under the theory of premises responsibility, may have legal liability fo

Download Solution Now

Download Solution Now

Choose a Plan

Premium

Gold

Silver

Request a Call Back