header-logo header-logo

A matter of some interest

27 March 2008 / Shantanu Majumdar KC
Issue: 7314 / Categories: Features , Regulatory , Insurance / reinsurance , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Is it time to update insurance law in the light of the Gambling Act 2005? asks Shantanu Majumdar

What is the difference between insurance and gambling? Historically, the legal answer was that the insured must have an insurable interest in the subject matter of the insurance whereas the gambler can bet on just about anything so long as bookmaker and odds are available. The distinction was important since contracts of wager were unenforceable by reason of s 18 of the Gambling Act 1845 and insurance effected by an insured without such an interest was a contract of wager. Like so much of English Law, its piecemeal development by a patchwork of statute (principally the Life Assurance Act 1774 (LAA 1774) and the Marine Insurance Act 1906) and case law has meant that the result is uneven and to some extent illogical. In particular, although generalisation is difficult and imprecise:

 

  • in indemnity insurance—where recovery is measured by the existence and extent of the insured’s actual loss, the rule
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll