header-logo header-logo

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

A matter of some interest

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll