Duty Of Utmost Good Faith Research Articles

THE DUTY OF UTMOST GOOD FAITH IN ASSET-FORFEITURE JURISPRUDENCE – SOME LESSONS TO LEARN

The Constitutional Court has held that the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 that empower the State to apply ex parte for restraint and preservation orders regarding property involved in criminal activities do not per se violate the requirements of the audi alteram partem rule. However, the State still has to adhere to the normal procedural and other obligations imposed on applicants approaching courts for orders on an ex parte basis; one of these obligations is the duty of utmost good faith or uberrima fides. This article examines the application of this rule by SA courts. As respondents are diligent in seeking instances of nondisclosure of relevant information to warrant the application of the uberrima fides rule to their advantage, a high degree of openness and good faith is required from the State in order to avoid these ex parte orders being rescinded or discharged

Application of the Terms and Conditions of English Law Related to the Duty of Utmost Good Faith under Marine Insurance Contract: Korean Supreme Court Decision 2018.10.25, Docket No.2017Da272103

Application of the Terms and Conditions of English Law Related to the Duty of Utmost Good Faith under Marine Insurance Contract: Korean Supreme Court Decision 2018.10.25, Docket No.2017Da272103

보험계약의 변경과 최대선의의무의 관계 - 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2017다272103 판결의 평석을 중심으로 -

신의성실의 원칙상 보험계약과 관련된 지식이나 정보가 계약의 일방 당사자에 편재되어 있는 경우에는, 그러한 위험정보를 보유하고 있는 계약당사자로 하여금 성실하고 정직한 협조를 상대방 당사자에게 제공하도록 할 필요가 있으므로, 보험계약상 최대선의의무와 보험계약법상 고지의무는 밀접한 관련성이 있다. 영국의 경우, 원칙적으로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피보험자 등의 중요한 사항의 고지는 보험계약의 성립 시까지 이행되어야 하지만, 법원은 보험계약상 최대선의의무는 계약의 성립 후에도 계속해서 존속한다고 판시하고 있다. 그러나 보험계약 체결 후 최대선의의무의 계속성을 인정하더라도, 최대선의의무의 인정범위는 엄격히 제한할 필요가 있다. 한편 보험계약의 체결 후에도 보험계약과 관련한 보험자의 결정이 필요한 경우에는 피보험자 등의 최대선의의무는 언제든 되살아나고, 이 때 피보험자는 보험자의 결정에 필요한 중요한 사항을 충실히 제공할 의무가 있다. 이에 따라 영국 법원은 보험계약 체결 후 피보험자의 고지의무의 대상인 중요한 사항의 판단에 관해 영국 해상보험법 제18조 제2항을 유추적용하고 있다. 다만 보험계약 성립 전과 후의 피보험자 등의 고지의무의 인정근거는 별개라는 점을 감안하면 보험계약 성립 후의 피보험자 등의 고지의무는 보험계약의 체결 전까지 피보험자가 부담하던 고지의무의 연장선에서 동일한 내용과 강도로 존속한다고 볼 수는 없고, 보험계약 체결 후 변경된 상황에 따라 요구되는 것에 한정된다고 보아야 한다. 이 사건에서 대법원은 “영국 해상보험법상 보험계약 계속 중 기존 계약의 내용을 추가 또는 변경할 때에는 해당 변경사항과 관련하여 중요한 사항에 대하여만 고지의무를 부담하는 것이지, 제18조에 규정된 고지의무와 같이 모든 중요한 사항에 대하여 고지하여야 하는 것은 아니다.”라고 판시하였다. 이러한 대법원 판시는 영국 해상보험법상 피보험자 등의 보험계약 성립 전과 후의 고지의무의 인정근거는 별개의 것이라는 점과 보험계약 성립 후에 피보험자가 고지해야 할 중요한 사항은 보험계약의 체결 후 문제가 된 사항과 ‘관련이 있는(relevant)’ ‘중요한 사항(material circumstances)’만이 이에 해당한다는 점에 관한 영국 판례의 입장을 재확인한 것에 그 의의가 있다.

In Terms of Utmost Good Faith, the Law of Insurance Imposes Strict Obligation on the Insured as Compared to the Insurer: A Literature Review

Unlike other contracts in legal arena, the law of insurance in England emphatically revolves around the duty of utmost good faith imported from the continental legal systems as nucleus element in insurance contracts. Notwithstanding the fact that insurance law casts the duty upon both the parties - insured and insurer, to an insurance contract, the former finds himself in a more harsh and difficult condition when a dispute arises. The instant literature is directed to scan the relevant writings on the subject with a view to present a comparative study of the legal stand of the insured and the insurer so far as their duty of utmost good faith, in other words the duty of disclosure, is concerned under the contract of insurance. It also focuses on some non-UK jurisdictions regarding the topic and on some possible reforms offered by the Law Commission.

THE PAST AND FUTURE OF ENGLISH INSURANCE LAW: GOOD FAITH AND WARRANTIES

This article reviews the current state of English insurance law applied to the duty of utmost good faith, in particular the assured's duty of full and accurate disclosure, and to insurance warranties, and examines the adequacy of the proposals made by the Law Commission for the reform of the law in both instances. Whilst recognising that there is a case for some reform, the reform recommended by the Law Commission is considered to extend beyond the bounds of what is necessary for the just and rational alteration of the law. In summary, the duty of utmost good faith requires no substantive reform as to the existence or scope of the duty, but does require a change by which the Courts will have the power to exercise a discretion to achieve a flexible remedial response to any breach of the duty. The principal reform which would benefit the law of warranties should concentrate on the clarity of the language in which the warranty is expressed and to identify the circumstances in which a true promissory warranty may be said to exist.

Utmost good faith – unintended injustice?

A brief commentary on measures in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill 2011 which amend the duty of utmost good faith as it applies pre-contractually to consumers – abolishing the duty of disclosure and altering the remedies available to an insurer for misrepresentation. Article by Peter Tyldesley, Senior Research Fellow in Law, St Mary’s University College, Twickenham - published in Amicus Curiae - Journal of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and its Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is produced by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

Appraising the Continuing Relevance of the Rule in Pan Atlantic – Fact or Fiction?

As ever so overly pertinent to the legality or otherwise of a Marine insurance contract, lays the duty of Utmost good faith which must be gleaned from the conduct of contracting parties inter se. The latitude of this duty manifestly vests in the Assured an obligation to disclose all facts to the Insurer, before the conclusion of a contract, every material circumstance within his actual knowledge and those deemed to be within the ambit of his knowledge. The House of Lords in the Pan Atlantic case charted a new course in determining the question of Materiality on one side of the coin and on the flip side broadened the standard of proof required by an Insurer to establish a material non disclosure on the Assured’s part. This Janus faced ingenuity of the decision is critically analyzed in this paper. Of more relevance is the stance taken by later courts in cases revolving round the issue of non disclosure and whether they heavily lean towards the decision or have embarked on a radical departure.

A Study on Issues and Tasks of the Duty of Utmost Good Faith in English Marine Insurance Law

A Study on Issues and Tasks of the Duty of Utmost Good Faith in English Marine Insurance Law

Continuing Duty of Utmost Good Faith in MIA(1906)

Continuing Duty of Utmost Good Faith in MIA(1906)

Utmost Good Faith in Insurance: Reform Overdue?

Considerable attention has been devoted to the duty or doctrine of utmost good faith in the academic literature and in the courts. This attention ranges from an analysis of the precise legal basis for the duty through a consideration of the continuing nature of that duty in the post-contract environment.It is quite clear that all contracts of insurance are subject to this duty of utmost good faith. What is less clear and certain are the incidents attendant upon such a duty and the scope of the obligations that such a duty imposes. This article examines the relative positions that have been reached in England and Australia and concludes with some recommendations for legislative reform to this area of the law.