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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll