Loss of ‘Unattended Property in a Public Place’ – Testing the Good Faith of the Travel Insurer

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
P. Latimer
{"title":"Loss of ‘Unattended Property in a Public Place’ – Testing the Good Faith of the Travel Insurer","authors":"P. Latimer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3501987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Travel insurance policies require insureds to take adequate precautions to protect their personal property including their luggage. They exclude cover for the loss or theft of personal property which has been left ‘unattended in a public place’. The relevant authorities on this exclusion including the often-cited decision by Lord Denning in the Starfire Case in the UK in 1962 would appear to give the final word to the insurer. However, caselaw is mixed and shows that a determined insured would have a good chance of success on appeal. <br><br>The fact that insurers regularly reject claims which are successful on appeal is another example of the conduct of the finance sector falling below community standards and expectations as demonstrated in the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Australia, 2018-2019). Wrongly rejecting claims can expose the insurer to several potential legal liabilities at common law and under statute. <br><br>This article recommends deleting the intricacies of the standard exclusion for property being left ‘unattended in a public place’ in favour of the standard policy condition that the insured must take adequate precautions to protect their personal property. It also recommends amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to empower the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to regulate the claims procedures of insurers.<br>","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Travel insurance policies require insureds to take adequate precautions to protect their personal property including their luggage. They exclude cover for the loss or theft of personal property which has been left ‘unattended in a public place’. The relevant authorities on this exclusion including the often-cited decision by Lord Denning in the Starfire Case in the UK in 1962 would appear to give the final word to the insurer. However, caselaw is mixed and shows that a determined insured would have a good chance of success on appeal.

The fact that insurers regularly reject claims which are successful on appeal is another example of the conduct of the finance sector falling below community standards and expectations as demonstrated in the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Australia, 2018-2019). Wrongly rejecting claims can expose the insurer to several potential legal liabilities at common law and under statute.

This article recommends deleting the intricacies of the standard exclusion for property being left ‘unattended in a public place’ in favour of the standard policy condition that the insured must take adequate precautions to protect their personal property. It also recommends amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to empower the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to regulate the claims procedures of insurers.
在公共场所遗失“无人看管的财产”-测试旅游保险公司的诚信
旅游保险政策要求被保险人采取适当的预防措施保护他们的个人财产,包括他们的行李。这些保险不包括个人财产的丢失或被盗,这些财产被遗弃在“无人看管的公共场所”。这一排除的相关权威机构,包括经常被引用的英国1962年丹宁勋爵(Lord Denning)在Starfire案(Starfire Case)中的裁决,似乎给了保险公司最后的发言权。然而,判例法是混合的,并表明一个坚定的被保险人将有很大的机会在上诉中成功。保险公司经常拒绝上诉成功的索赔,这是金融部门行为低于社区标准和期望的另一个例子,正如皇家委员会对银行、养老金和金融服务业不当行为的调查(澳大利亚,2018-2019)所证明的那样。错误地拒绝索赔会使保险公司在普通法和成文法上面临几种潜在的法律责任。本文建议删除财产“无人看管在公共场所”的标准排除条款的复杂性,以支持标准保单条件,即被保险人必须采取充分的预防措施来保护他们的个人财产。它还建议对《2001年公司法》(Cth)进行修订,以授权澳大利亚证券和投资委员会(ASIC)规范保险公司的索赔程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信