Insurance law in the United Kingdom (UK) has recently undergone significant reforms. Until 2015, insurance law in the United Kingdom was still largely regulated by the Marine Insurance Act 1906. This meant that a statute created over a hundred years ago was still regulating insurance law. The need for the more recent reforms was evidently dire. The Law Commission undertook an investigation that highlighted the need for new insurance laws. The result was the enactment of the Insurance Act 2015. There are some significant changes in the new Act concerning fraudulent claims, breaches of good faith and the duty of disclosure. The new laws appear to be much more pro-policyholder than was the case in the previous regime. This article undertakes a detailed analysis of these reforms and also presents a comparison with South African laws. The ultimate question is whether South Africa can learn anything from the recent reforms to UK insurance law.

Insurance fraud is prevalent in all spheres of the insurance industry; however, motor vehicle insurance sees a major increase in fraudulent insurance claims. It is for this reason that insurers need mechanisms in place to protect themselves from fraudulent claims by an insured. One of the more common preventative measures that insurers are using to protect themselves is by inserting forfeiture clauses in the insurance contract itself. These clauses aim to protect the insurer against any type of fraudulent claim by the insured. These clauses do, however, also bring a host of issues to the fore; including the fairness of these clauses as against the insured. These clauses do tend to be one-sided and therefore, a proper evaluation of these clauses is necessary to understand the application and effect these clauses can have on both the parties to an insurance contract.

No abstract

The Insurance Distribution Directive is set to change how insurers and intermediaries design as well as sell insurance products. The provisions of the Directive are far-reaching and are to have a significant impact on consumers. The Directive is heavily pro-consumer and due to its pro-consumer nature, it is to have extensive benefits for consumers. South Africa has recently enacted microinsurance provisions which are now considered formalised insurance products in the country. New legislation has been enacted to regulate microinsurance policies in both life and non-life spheres. Microinsurance is to have a profound impact on a large part of the country’s population. Considering the pro-consumer and extensive nature of the IDD, it is worth considering what the IDD can “offer” the South African microinsurance model, what can South Africa learn from these provisions?

Both the courts of first instance and the court of appeal found the insurers liable. In the trial court, Blair J stated that the design fault in the engines that was allegedly not disclosed was not material because it would not have caused the insurers to reject the risk. In addition, there was also not a want of due diligence as no negligence pertaining to the vessel could be attributed to the owner. 3 The court relied on the Canadian decision in Secunda Marine Services v Liberty Mutual. 4 On appeal, the court relied on the policy wording, came to the same conclusion and, as a result, the issue of non-disclosure was said to be immaterial. This case illustrates Patrick Vrancken & Charl Hugo (eds). 2020. African perspectives on selected marine, maritime and international trade law topics. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media