INSURANCE: PRINCIPLES AND TYPES
Mr. Satish, a resident of Ranchi, applied for a life insurance policy worth ₹50 Lakhs. During the application process, the insurance company asked a series of questions regarding his health, lifestyle, and past medical history. Mr. Satish had been a heavy smoker for the last 15 years and had been treated for a minor respiratory issue two years ago. However, fearing that his premium would increase significantly or his application might be rejected, he marked "No" in the columns for smoking and respiratory illness. He believed that since he was currently feeling fine, these old details were not important. Two years after the policy was issued, Mr. Satish unfortunately passed away due to lung cancer. When his wife filed a claim for the insurance amount, the company conducted an investigation and discovered his long-term smoking habit and previous medical records from a local hospital. Consequently, the insurance company rejected the claim entirely, stating that the contract was void from the beginning due to the non-disclosure of material facts.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance violated by Mr. Satish in this case.
(b) Explain the meaning of this principle and why it is crucial for an insurance contract.
(c) Is the insurance company legally justified in rejecting the claim? Give a reason.
(a) Identify the principle of insurance violated by Mr. Satish in this case.
(b) Explain the meaning of this principle and why it is crucial for an insurance contract.
(c) Is the insurance company legally justified in rejecting the claim? Give a reason.
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Utmost Good Faith (Uberrimae Fidei).
(b) Meaning: This principle states that both the insurer and the insured must disclose all material facts related to the insurance contract to each other. A material fact is one that would influence the decision of the insurer to accept the risk or determine the premium.
(c) Yes. The contract of insurance is a contract of faith. Since Mr. Satish concealed a material fact (smoking and respiratory illness), the contract becomes voidable at the option of the insurer.
(a) Utmost Good Faith (Uberrimae Fidei).
(b) Meaning: This principle states that both the insurer and the insured must disclose all material facts related to the insurance contract to each other. A material fact is one that would influence the decision of the insurer to accept the risk or determine the premium.
(c) Yes. The contract of insurance is a contract of faith. Since Mr. Satish concealed a material fact (smoking and respiratory illness), the contract becomes voidable at the option of the insurer.
Mr. Alok, a businessman in Patna, recently sold his old warehouse to his friend, Mr. Binay, for a sum of ₹80 Lakhs. The legal transfer of ownership was completed in March. However, Mr. Alok had already paid for a one-year fire insurance policy for the warehouse back in January, and the policy was still active in his name. In June, a massive fire broke out due to a short circuit, and the warehouse was completely destroyed. Mr. Alok, seeing that he still held the physical insurance document in his name, decided to file a claim with the insurance company to recover the loss. He argued that since he had paid the premium for the full year, the company was liable to pay him. The insurance company, however, refused to pay Mr. Alok, pointing out that at the time of the fire, he no longer suffered any financial loss from the destruction of the building as he had already received the full sale price from Mr. Binay months earlier.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance discussed in this scenario.
(b) When must this interest exist in the case of (i) Fire Insurance and (ii) Life Insurance?
(c) Can Mr. Alok successfully claim the insurance money? Why or why not?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance discussed in this scenario.
(b) When must this interest exist in the case of (i) Fire Insurance and (ii) Life Insurance?
(c) Can Mr. Alok successfully claim the insurance money? Why or why not?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Insurable Interest.
(b) Existence of Interest:
(i) Fire Insurance: Must exist both at the time of taking the policy and at the time of loss.
(ii) Life Insurance: Must exist at the time of taking the policy (not necessarily at the time of death).
(c) No. Mr. Alok no longer had an insurable interest in the property at the time of the fire because he had sold it. Without insurable interest, the contract is treated as a mere wager and is not enforceable.
(a) Insurable Interest.
(b) Existence of Interest:
(i) Fire Insurance: Must exist both at the time of taking the policy and at the time of loss.
(ii) Life Insurance: Must exist at the time of taking the policy (not necessarily at the time of death).
(c) No. Mr. Alok no longer had an insurable interest in the property at the time of the fire because he had sold it. Without insurable interest, the contract is treated as a mere wager and is not enforceable.
Mr. Rohan owns a specialized printing press in Ranchi worth ₹20 Lakhs. To be extra safe, he insured the machinery for ₹30 Lakhs with a reputed general insurance company. A few months later, a technical fault led to a fire that partially damaged the machinery. An independent surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the actual repair and replacement cost of the damage to be ₹8 Lakhs. Mr. Rohan, however, demanded that the company pay him ₹15 Lakhs. He argued that since he had been paying a higher premium based on a ₹30 Lakh valuation, he was entitled to a higher payout to upgrade his equipment. The insurance company rejected his demand and insisted on paying only the actual loss of ₹8 Lakhs. They explained to Mr. Rohan that insurance is designed to put him back in the same financial position he was in before the loss, not to provide him with a profit or a better machine than he originally had.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance that limits Mr. Rohan's claim to ₹8 Lakhs.
(b) Explain the main objective of this principle.
(c) Does this principle apply to Life Insurance contracts? Give a reason.
(a) Identify the principle of insurance that limits Mr. Rohan's claim to ₹8 Lakhs.
(b) Explain the main objective of this principle.
(c) Does this principle apply to Life Insurance contracts? Give a reason.
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Principle of Indemnity.
(b) Objective: The objective is to compensate the insured for the actual loss suffered and to bring them back to the same financial position they occupied immediately before the event. It prevents the insured from making a profit out of insurance.
(c) No. Life insurance is not a contract of indemnity because the value of a human life cannot be measured in terms of money. In life insurance, the full sum assured is paid on the happening of the event.
(a) Principle of Indemnity.
(b) Objective: The objective is to compensate the insured for the actual loss suffered and to bring them back to the same financial position they occupied immediately before the event. It prevents the insured from making a profit out of insurance.
(c) No. Life insurance is not a contract of indemnity because the value of a human life cannot be measured in terms of money. In life insurance, the full sum assured is paid on the happening of the event.
"Modern Garments," a retail shop in Patna, is insured against fire for ₹10 Lakhs with Company A and for ₹5 Lakhs with Company B. One night, a fire broke out in the store, causing a total loss of ₹3 Lakhs to the inventory. The owner of the shop, Mr. Gupta, decided to file a full claim of ₹3 Lakhs from Company A, thinking it would be easier than dealing with two companies. Company A settled the full claim but later contacted Company B, demanding that they pay their proportionate share of the loss. Mr. Gupta was confused, believing that since he had two different policies, he could have potentially claimed ₹3 Lakhs from each company and collected a total of ₹6 Lakhs. The insurance agents explained that he cannot collect more than the actual loss and that the two companies must share the burden of the loss in proportion to the sum assured by each.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance discussed here.
(b) Calculate the proportionate amount that Company B is liable to contribute to Company A.
(c) What happens if the insured person has already collected the full loss from one insurer?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance discussed here.
(b) Calculate the proportionate amount that Company B is liable to contribute to Company A.
(c) What happens if the insured person has already collected the full loss from one insurer?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Principle of Contribution.
(b) Calculation: Total Sum Assured = 10L + 5L = 15L. Proportion of Company B = (5L / 15L) * 3L = ₹1 Lakh.
(c) Right of Contribution: If one insurer pays the full loss, they have the right to claim the proportionate share from the other insurers. The insured cannot claim the same loss twice.
(a) Principle of Contribution.
(b) Calculation: Total Sum Assured = 10L + 5L = 15L. Proportion of Company B = (5L / 15L) * 3L = ₹1 Lakh.
(c) Right of Contribution: If one insurer pays the full loss, they have the right to claim the proportionate share from the other insurers. The insured cannot claim the same loss twice.
Mr. Sahay’s premium SUV was stolen from a parking lot in Ranchi. He had a comprehensive motor insurance policy and filed a claim for the full value of the vehicle, which was ₹15 Lakhs. After verifying the police report and the theft, the insurance company paid the full ₹15 Lakhs to Mr. Sahay as compensation. Two months later, the Ranchi police recovered the stolen SUV in a nearby town. The vehicle was in relatively good condition. Mr. Sahay, upon hearing the news, rushed to the police station to take possession of his car. However, the insurance company intervened and claimed that the vehicle now belonged to them. Mr. Sahay argued that it was his car and since he was the original owner, he should get it back. The company explained that since they had already compensated him for the total loss of the car, all rights of ownership had shifted to the insurer.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance applicable in this case.
(b) Explain the logic behind this principle.
(c) What would happen if the insurance company sold the recovered car for ₹16 Lakhs? Can Mr. Sahay claim the extra ₹1 Lakh?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance applicable in this case.
(b) Explain the logic behind this principle.
(c) What would happen if the insurance company sold the recovered car for ₹16 Lakhs? Can Mr. Sahay claim the extra ₹1 Lakh?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Principle of Subrogation.
(b) Logic: Once the insurer pays the compensation for the loss, they step into the shoes of the insured and acquire all legal rights and remedies that the insured had against the third party or the property. This prevents the insured from getting paid twice for the same loss.
(c) No. Once the claim is settled, the car belongs to the insurer. Any profit made from selling the salvage belongs to the company.
(a) Principle of Subrogation.
(b) Logic: Once the insurer pays the compensation for the loss, they step into the shoes of the insured and acquire all legal rights and remedies that the insured had against the third party or the property. This prevents the insured from getting paid twice for the same loss.
(c) No. Once the claim is settled, the car belongs to the insurer. Any profit made from selling the salvage belongs to the company.
A merchant in Patna insured a cargo of expensive silk fabric against "Marine Perils" (damage by seawater) for a voyage to London. During the journey, several rats on the ship gnawed a hole in a wooden pipe carrying fresh water for the crew. The fresh water leaked out of the pipe and soaked the silk fabric, causing significant damage. The merchant filed a claim under his marine insurance policy, citing that the damage occurred while the ship was at sea. The insurance company, however, rejected the claim. They argued that the policy only covered damage caused by seawater (a marine peril), not damage caused by fresh water from a leaky pipe. The company stated that the "nearest" or most direct cause of the damage was the rats gnawing the pipe, which was not an insured peril under the specific policy taken by the merchant.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance used by the company to reject the claim.
(b) Explain the meaning of this principle.
(c) If the rats had gnawed a hole in the ship's hull, letting seawater in which damaged the silk, would the claim be valid? Why?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance used by the company to reject the claim.
(b) Explain the meaning of this principle.
(c) If the rats had gnawed a hole in the ship's hull, letting seawater in which damaged the silk, would the claim be valid? Why?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Principle of Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).
(b) Meaning: This principle states that when a loss is caused by more than one cause, the most direct, dominant, and effective cause of the loss should be considered to determine liability, not the remote cause.
(c) Yes. In that case, the proximate cause of damage would be seawater entering the ship (a marine peril), which was specifically insured.
(a) Principle of Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).
(b) Meaning: This principle states that when a loss is caused by more than one cause, the most direct, dominant, and effective cause of the loss should be considered to determine liability, not the remote cause.
(c) Yes. In that case, the proximate cause of damage would be seawater entering the ship (a marine peril), which was specifically insured.
One night, a small fire started in the corner of Mr. Verma's grocery shop in Koderma due to a lit candle. Mr. Verma, who was present in the shop at the time, noticed the flames. Instead of using the fire extinguisher mounted on the wall or calling the fire brigade immediately, he simply stepped out of the shop and watched the fire grow. He thought to himself, "I have a full fire insurance policy for ₹5 Lakhs, so why should I risk my safety or effort to put it out? The company will pay for everything anyway." As a result, the entire shop was gutted. During the investigation, a neighbor testified that Mr. Verma made no attempt to save the goods despite having ample time. The insurance company reduced his claim amount significantly, citing his negligence and failure to act like a prudent person.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance Mr. Verma failed to follow.
(b) What does this principle expect from the insured person during an accident?
(c) Does being insured give the owner a right to be careless?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance Mr. Verma failed to follow.
(b) What does this principle expect from the insured person during an accident?
(c) Does being insured give the owner a right to be careless?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Principle of Mitigation of Loss.
(b) Expectation: The insured must take all possible steps to minimize the loss to the insured property in the event of a disaster. They should act as if the property was not insured.
(c) No. The insured has a duty to protect the property. Negligence or intentional passivity can lead to the rejection or reduction of the insurance claim.
(a) Principle of Mitigation of Loss.
(b) Expectation: The insured must take all possible steps to minimize the loss to the insured property in the event of a disaster. They should act as if the property was not insured.
(c) No. The insured has a duty to protect the property. Negligence or intentional passivity can lead to the rejection or reduction of the insurance claim.
Mr. Shivam is 35 years old and works in a bank in Ranchi. He wants to ensure that if anything happens to him, his wife and daughter are financially secure. At the same time, he wants to build a corpus of money so that if he lives until the age of 60, he can receive a lump sum for his retirement. He visits an insurance agent who suggests an "Endowment Policy." The agent explains that this policy serves two purposes: it provides a death benefit to the family if he dies during the term, and it also acts as a long-term investment that pays him back with a bonus if he survives the term. Mr. Shivam is happy because he sees this as a combination of protection and savings, unlike fire or marine insurance which only pay if a specific accident occurs.
Questions:
(a) Identify the type of insurance Mr. Shivam is taking.
(b) Explain why Life Insurance is considered both a "Protection" and an "Investment".
(c) How does this differ from general insurance (like fire or marine)?
(a) Identify the type of insurance Mr. Shivam is taking.
(b) Explain why Life Insurance is considered both a "Protection" and an "Investment".
(c) How does this differ from general insurance (like fire or marine)?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Life Insurance (Endowment Policy).
(b) Dual Role: It is Protection because it pays the sum assured to the family if the insured dies. It is Investment because the amount is paid back to the insured themselves if they survive the policy term.
(c) Difference: Life insurance is certain to pay out (either on death or maturity). General insurance is a contract of indemnity that pays only if the specific loss occurs.
(a) Life Insurance (Endowment Policy).
(b) Dual Role: It is Protection because it pays the sum assured to the family if the insured dies. It is Investment because the amount is paid back to the insured themselves if they survive the policy term.
(c) Difference: Life insurance is certain to pay out (either on death or maturity). General insurance is a contract of indemnity that pays only if the specific loss occurs.
Mrs. Kapoor runs a boutique in Patna and has taken a fire insurance policy for her stock worth ₹10 Lakhs. The policy period is from 1st January 2026 to 31st December 2026. On 5th January 2027, before she could renew the policy, a massive fire broke out due to a neighboring shop’s negligence, and her entire boutique was destroyed. Mrs. Kapoor immediately contacted the insurance company, arguing that she had been a loyal customer for five years and the delay in renewal was only by five days. She requested them to settle the claim as a special case. The insurance company politely declined, stating that fire insurance is a contract for a specific period and once the term expires, the insurer's liability ends instantly.
Questions:
(a) What is the typical duration of a Fire Insurance policy?
(b) Is the insurance company liable to pay Mrs. Kapoor? Give a reason.
(c) Mention any one "Insured Peril" under a standard fire insurance policy other than fire itself.
(a) What is the typical duration of a Fire Insurance policy?
(b) Is the insurance company liable to pay Mrs. Kapoor? Give a reason.
(c) Mention any one "Insured Peril" under a standard fire insurance policy other than fire itself.
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Usually one year, renewable annually.
(b) No. The loss occurred after the policy had expired. Insurance protection is only valid during the specific period mentioned in the contract.
(c) Standard policies often cover Explosions, Lightning, or Riots.
(a) Usually one year, renewable annually.
(b) No. The loss occurred after the policy had expired. Insurance protection is only valid during the specific period mentioned in the contract.
(c) Standard policies often cover Explosions, Lightning, or Riots.
An export house in Ranchi is shipping a large consignment of tribal handicrafts to the United States. They have taken a marine insurance policy that covers the "Cargo" against risks like ship collision, sinking, and piracy. During the voyage, the ship hit a massive storm, and the captain was forced to throw some of the handicrafts overboard to lighten the ship and prevent it from sinking. Furthermore, due to the storm, the ship reached the destination 15 days late, and the American buyer refused to pay the full amount because the goods were no longer in season. The exporter filed a claim for both the lost goods and the loss of profit due to the delay.
Questions:
(a) Identify the three types of Marine Insurance (Cargo, Hull, Freight). Which one did the exporter take?
(b) Is the loss caused by throwing goods overboard (Jettisoning) usually covered?
(c) Will the insurance company pay for the "loss of profit" caused by the 15-day delay?
(a) Identify the three types of Marine Insurance (Cargo, Hull, Freight). Which one did the exporter take?
(b) Is the loss caused by throwing goods overboard (Jettisoning) usually covered?
(c) Will the insurance company pay for the "loss of profit" caused by the 15-day delay?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Types: Cargo, Hull (ship), and Freight. The exporter took Cargo Insurance.
(b) Yes. Jettisoning goods to save the ship is a covered peril.
(c) No. Standard marine insurance covers physical loss or damage to goods, not consequential losses like loss of market or loss of profit due to delays.
(a) Types: Cargo, Hull (ship), and Freight. The exporter took Cargo Insurance.
(b) Yes. Jettisoning goods to save the ship is a covered peril.
(c) No. Standard marine insurance covers physical loss or damage to goods, not consequential losses like loss of market or loss of profit due to delays.
Mr. Rajesh, a middle-aged man in Ranchi, has a "Mediclaim" policy for his family. Last month, his daughter had to undergo an emergency appendicitis surgery. He took her to a "Network Hospital" listed by his insurance company. At the time of discharge, Mr. Rajesh did not have to pay the ₹80,000 bill from his own pocket. Instead, the hospital coordinated directly with the Third Party Administrator (TPA) of the insurance company, and the bill was settled. However, when Mr. Rajesh tried to claim the cost of the medicines he had bought from a local pharmacy three days before the surgery, the company asked for original prescriptions and bills to "reimburse" him. He was confused about the difference between these two ways of getting his medical bills paid.
Questions:
(a) What is the "Cashless Facility" mentioned in the case?
(b) Explain the difference between "Cashless" and "Reimbursement" claims.
(c) Why is health insurance becoming essential in modern times?
(a) What is the "Cashless Facility" mentioned in the case?
(b) Explain the difference between "Cashless" and "Reimbursement" claims.
(c) Why is health insurance becoming essential in modern times?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Cashless Facility: It allows the insured to get treated at network hospitals without paying the bill upfront; the insurer settles it directly.
(b) Difference: In Cashless, the insurer pays the hospital. In Reimbursement, the insured pays first and then gets the money back from the insurer after submitting bills.
(c) Essentiality: Due to the high cost of medical technology and hospitalization, health insurance protects a family's savings during medical emergencies.
(a) Cashless Facility: It allows the insured to get treated at network hospitals without paying the bill upfront; the insurer settles it directly.
(b) Difference: In Cashless, the insurer pays the hospital. In Reimbursement, the insured pays first and then gets the money back from the insurer after submitting bills.
(c) Essentiality: Due to the high cost of medical technology and hospitalization, health insurance protects a family's savings during medical emergencies.
In a small industrial area near Patna, 100 small factory owners realized that every year, at least one of them suffers a major loss due to accidents or fire. They decided to create a common fund where each owner contributes ₹10,000 every year. This creates a pool of ₹10 Lakhs. If any member's factory is damaged, the loss is paid out of this pool. This way, the heavy financial burden of one person is shared by all 100 people. This perfectly illustrates the basic concept of insurance, where a large number of people exposed to a similar risk come together to contribute a small amount (premium) to compensate the few who actually suffer the loss.
Questions:
(a) Define the concept of "Insurance" based on this story.
(b) What is the "Premium" in this scenario?
(c) How does insurance act as a "Social Device"?
(a) Define the concept of "Insurance" based on this story.
(b) What is the "Premium" in this scenario?
(c) How does insurance act as a "Social Device"?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Insurance: It is a device for the transfer of risk from an individual to a group, which agrees to share the loss.
(b) Premium: The ₹10,000 contribution made by each factory owner is the premium.
(c) Social Device: It spreads the loss of a few over a large number of people, making the individual loss bearable and providing economic stability to the community.
(a) Insurance: It is a device for the transfer of risk from an individual to a group, which agrees to share the loss.
(b) Premium: The ₹10,000 contribution made by each factory owner is the premium.
(c) Social Device: It spreads the loss of a few over a large number of people, making the individual loss bearable and providing economic stability to the community.
"Safety First Insurance Co." in Ranchi recently issued a massive policy to a giant oil refinery for ₹5,000 Crores. The management of the insurance company realized that if a major fire were to occur at the refinery, the total loss would be so high that the company might go bankrupt. To protect themselves, "Safety First" decided to insure ₹3,000 Crores of that same risk with another global insurance company called "Global Re." Now, if a loss occurs, "Safety First" will pay the refinery, but they will be able to recover ₹3,000 Crores from "Global Re." This practice allows insurance companies to take on very large risks without endangering their own financial survival.
Questions:
(a) Identify the concept discussed in the above paragraph.
(b) How does this differ from "Double Insurance"?
(c) Who pays the premium to "Global Re" in this case?
(a) Identify the concept discussed in the above paragraph.
(b) How does this differ from "Double Insurance"?
(c) Who pays the premium to "Global Re" in this case?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Re-insurance.
(b) Difference: In Double Insurance, the insured takes multiple policies from different companies. In Re-insurance, an insurance company insures its own risk with another insurance company.
(c) The original insurance company (Safety First) pays the premium to the re-insurer.
(a) Re-insurance.
(b) Difference: In Double Insurance, the insured takes multiple policies from different companies. In Re-insurance, an insurance company insures its own risk with another insurance company.
(c) The original insurance company (Safety First) pays the premium to the re-insurer.
Mr. Vikas is a very cautious man in Patna. He has taken three different life insurance policies: one from LIC for ₹10 Lakhs, one from ICICI for ₹5 Lakhs, and one from HDFC for ₹5 Lakhs. He pays premiums for all three regularly. His logic is that since life is unpredictable, he wants his family to get the maximum possible benefit. He told his friend that if he dies, his family will claim and receive the full amount from all three companies, totaling ₹20 Lakhs. His friend, who just studied Business Studies, argued that this is not allowed because of the Principle of Contribution and Indemnity.
Questions:
(a) Is the friend's argument correct regarding Life Insurance?
(b) What is this situation called when a person takes multiple policies for the same subject matter?
(c) How much will the family receive in total if Mr. Vikas passes away?
(a) Is the friend's argument correct regarding Life Insurance?
(b) What is this situation called when a person takes multiple policies for the same subject matter?
(c) How much will the family receive in total if Mr. Vikas passes away?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) No. The principles of indemnity and contribution do not apply to Life Insurance.
(b) Double Insurance.
(c) ₹20 Lakhs. In life insurance, the insured can take any number of policies and the family is entitled to receive the full sum assured from all of them upon death.
(a) No. The principles of indemnity and contribution do not apply to Life Insurance.
(b) Double Insurance.
(c) ₹20 Lakhs. In life insurance, the insured can take any number of policies and the family is entitled to receive the full sum assured from all of them upon death.
A warehouse in Ranchi was insured against fire. A massive riot broke out in the city, and a group of rioters set fire to a nearby building. The heat from that building caused an electric short circuit in the insured warehouse, which eventually started a fire inside the warehouse, destroying the stock. The insurance policy for the warehouse specifically excluded losses caused by "Riots and Civil Commotion." The owner filed a claim, saying the loss was caused by "Fire," which was an insured peril. The company rejected the claim, saying that the fire was a direct consequence of the riot.
Questions:
(a) Identify the principle of insurance involved in this dispute.
(b) Explain why the company rejected the claim based on the "proximate cause".
(c) If the short circuit had happened due to a normal wire malfunction unrelated to the riot, would the claim be valid?
(a) Identify the principle of insurance involved in this dispute.
(b) Explain why the company rejected the claim based on the "proximate cause".
(c) If the short circuit had happened due to a normal wire malfunction unrelated to the riot, would the claim be valid?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).
(b) Rejection Reason: The "proximate" or dominant cause of the fire was the riot (which was an excluded peril). Since the chain of events started with a riot, the loss is not covered.
(c) Yes. If the fire was caused by a random short circuit (a fire peril), it would be covered under a standard fire policy.
(a) Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).
(b) Rejection Reason: The "proximate" or dominant cause of the fire was the riot (which was an excluded peril). Since the chain of events started with a riot, the loss is not covered.
(c) Yes. If the fire was caused by a random short circuit (a fire peril), it would be covered under a standard fire policy.
Mr. Mehra owns a logistics company in Patna with a fleet of 20 trucks. He ensures each truck is physically insured against accidents and theft. However, he also realizes that if a truck is involved in an accident that damages someone else's property or injures a pedestrian, he could be sued for lakhs of rupees. To protect himself against these legal costs and payouts to third parties, he takes a "Third Party Liability Insurance." He explains to his drivers that insurance isn't just about protecting their own "physical assets," but also about protecting the "legal liability" of the owner.
Questions:
(a) What is the "Subject Matter" of insurance in the case of Third Party Liability?
(b) How does this differ from the subject matter of Life or Fire insurance?
(c) Why is third-party insurance mandatory for vehicles in India?
(a) What is the "Subject Matter" of insurance in the case of Third Party Liability?
(b) How does this differ from the subject matter of Life or Fire insurance?
(c) Why is third-party insurance mandatory for vehicles in India?
View Answer▼
Answer:
(a) The Legal Liability of the insured to pay damages to others.
(b) Difference: In Life insurance, the subject matter is human life. In Fire insurance, it is a physical property/asset. In Liability insurance, it is an obligation.
(c) Mandatory: To ensure that victims of road accidents receive compensation even if the vehicle owner is not wealthy enough to pay it personally.
(a) The Legal Liability of the insured to pay damages to others.
(b) Difference: In Life insurance, the subject matter is human life. In Fire insurance, it is a physical property/asset. In Liability insurance, it is an obligation.
(c) Mandatory: To ensure that victims of road accidents receive compensation even if the vehicle owner is not wealthy enough to pay it personally.
No comments:
Post a Comment