AI-transcribed

The insurance upon life is a contract by which an underwriter, for a certain sum, proportioned to the risk (judged of from the age, state of health, or profession of the person whose life is to be insured), engages to pay a certain sum, should the person die within the time limited in the policy. To prevent the application of this useful expedient to the improper purposes to which it was sometimes applied, it was enacted that no insurance shall be made on the life or lives of any person or persons, wherein the person, for whose use the policy is made, shall have no pecuniary interest; or by way of gaming or wagering; policies made contrary thereto being declared void and null.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Insurance.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Insurance

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1793 Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1790 Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Charles Addison and Sons v. William Duguid and Others 1792 Insurance, Adjudication, Statute, Contract, Act of Parliament, Debt In February 1791, the ship Leviathan, sailed from Borrowstounness for Greenland on a whaling expedition. The vessel's owners, Charles Addison and Sons, took out an insurance policy with William Duguid, Andrew M'Kenzie, George Robertson, and James Hunter for 90 butts of blubber, with a provision that the underwriters would pay for whatever portion less than 90 the vessel returned with. The Leviathan was delayed at Stromness, Orkney for several weeks, and when the ship returned to its home port with only 3 or 4 butts, Addison and Sons sought to collect on the insurance. Their attempt to cash in the policy led to litigation in the Admiralty Court where the Judge Admiral initially ruled for the underwriters, before subsequently ruling against them on the Addisons' appeal. Duguid, M'Kenzie, Robertson, and Hunter asked the Court of Session to reverse the Judge Admiral's ruling, arguing that the Leviathan's delay in the Orkney's voided the insurance policy. Addison and Sons in turn argued that their reading of 26 Geo. III, cap. 41 and 29 Geo. III supported their claims, and further argued that the insurance policy was actually a wager, an illegal gambling contract violative of 19th Geo. II.
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Reduction Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al 1793 Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss.
Cunningham & Co. v. Craigie 1789 Insurance, Arrestment, Deviation, Creditor, Debt, Prize William Cunningham and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Laurence Craigie and other insurers to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor that assoilzied the defenders, seeking recovery under a 1783 policy. The defenders answered that the policy was void for concealment of a voyage to Charlestown carrying British troops and for material alteration of the terms from a voyage to St Thomas. The pursuers subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, while the respondents denied any knowing intent to deviate to Charlestown and maintained that the policy covered only the voyage to St Thomas with a convoy call serving as a risk-reducing clause.
Duckett v. Williams 1832 Fraud, Insurance, Aliment, Thirlage, Policy coverage, Evidence
Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al 1786 Ships, Insurance, Warranty, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Contract Robert Dunmore and Company, merchants in Glasgow, raised an action against Richard Allan and other insurers in Glasgow and Archibald Campbell and other insurers in Greenock regarding a maritime insurance contract and questions of convoy obligations and warranty terms. The merchants petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Braxfield, and the insurers answered the petition.
Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company 1829 Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders.
Hamilton v. Cunningham 1792 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor John Hamilton of Barns pursued Sir William Cunningham of Robertland, Baronet, and William Campbell of Fairfield, as representatives of the deceased Sir William Cunningham and William Campbell, together with William Ballantyne and James Hunter, for debts which the defenders contended were barred by prescription. Hamilton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against an Inner-House interlocutor, and after the defenders answered, a report maintained that the defenders' books showed debts still owing despite the prescription plea. Hamilton subsequently answered the defenders' petition maintaining that his claims remained valid.
Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. 1782 Contract, Insurance, Interlocutor, Action, Debt, Bill of Exchange This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Innes v. Stuart 1771 Shipment, Insurance Pursuer Robert Innes, a merchant in Elgin, purchased an insurance policy in September 1769 from defenders James Stuart and James Stodart, merchants in Edinburgh. The policy covered a shipment of oats and grain from Elgin to the Firth of Forth. During the trip, the ship sprang a leak and was forced to stop at the nearest port in the harbor of Montrose. The ship also touched upon a rock in the port. The goods in the ship were considerably damaged, so Innes sought payment from Stuart and Stodart under the insurance policy. Stuart and Stodart refused to pay, finding that neither the insurance policy nor the practice of merchants covered this ship's situation. The insurance policy at issue covered damage when the ship was stranded. Stuart and Stodart maintained that the damage to the ship occurred before the ship was stranded, when the ship sprung a leak. Innes disagreed, arguing that the damage to the cargo only occurred after the ship was stranded, thereby triggering coverage under the insurance policy.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company 1795 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath Digitization and description in progress.
James Donaldson and James Pinkerton v. The Manchester Insurance Company 1831 Insurance, Debt, Insurance Claim, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Assignment James Donaldson and James Pinkerton raised an action against the Manchester Insurance Company to recover payment under a fire insurance policy for wheat destroyed in 1829, claiming £408 1s. 11d. plus interest and costs. The defenders denied the competence of the action and asserted that the claim was void and barred. The parties thereafter joined issue on whether the defenders were liable for the loss of wheat and whether the policy had been discharged.
James Edmonstone v. William Jackson 1779 Abandonment, Ships, Insurance, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Property In April 1776, John Walker & Company freighted the Duntreath with a load of coal, deliverable to Alexander-John Alexander of Grenada. Upon the Duntreath's arrival in Grenada, Bartlet, Campbell, & Company freighted it for a journey to Florida. In August 1776, after stopping on the St. Johns River, the Duntreath's captain James Edmonstone was captured by rebels and carried to Savannah. Now under the command of James Crichton, on its journey back to Grenada, the Duntreath was captured by the privateer ship Tyrannicide, but then recaptured and brought to New York for repairs. In January 1778, the Duntreath set out for Grenada again, but was captured by another rebel ship, the Three Sisters, before being recaptured and brought to Grenada. When no appearance was made to reclaim the Duntreath, Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court had it auctioned. The owners of the Duntreath then made a claim to its insurance underwriters for a total loss, however the underwriters argued that because the auction money was deposited with Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court, it was merely a partial loss. After the High Court of Admiralty found their case ineffectual, the ship's owners appealed to the Court of Session. Lord Gardenstone reported their bill, but the Court ruled it outside of their jurisdiction. Their bill was later remitted to Lord Braxfield, however, who reported it again; the Court then determined that the pursuers could only claim a partial loss.
John Scougal v. Robert Young, and Others 1798 Insurance, Fraud, Reduction, Agent, Debt, Adjudication John Scougal sued Robert Young and the other underwriters for an unpaid average loss on flax and pot ashes damaged when the vessel ran aground, notwithstanding that most of the underwriters had already settled. The defenders argued that the insurance policy had not been ordered before the loss was known, and maintained that even if it had been, they were not deceived by any concealment.
John Steven and Company v. John Douglas 1772 Deviation, Insurance, Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Proof Defender John Douglas provided an insurance policy to pursuer John Steven and Company for a shipment of goods on the Belfast Trader. The planned shipment route was from Belfast to Greenock or Port Glasgow. Before the ship set sail, however, merchants in Stranraer requested that the ship transport some goods from Belfast to Stranraer. The owner of the Belfast Trader agreed to transport these goods. In the course of trying to reach Stranraer, the ship encountered a storm and sank off the coast of Girvan in Ayrshire. Douglas refused to reimburse Steven and Company. Douglas claimed that the voyage taken by the Belfast Trader was different than the voyage provided for in the insurance policy. Steven and Company sought reimbursement, arguing that the voyage to Stranraer on the way to Greenock or Port Glasgow was not a significant deviation from the original route.
M'Callum, et al v. Hunter, et al 1786 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Insurance, Reduction, Sequestration The creditors of Kenneth M'Callum pursued Robert Hunter and other London underwriters to recover the sum insured on the ship *New York*. The underwriters alleged that the vessel had been wilfully destroyed by its owners to defraud them and resisted payment. The creditors maintained that the policy remained valid and that M'Callum bore no liability for the loss.
Mackies v. Houston and Others 1774 Deviation, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Fraud, Adjudication Pursuers Alexander and John Mackies obtained insurance for their ship, the Marshall of Gardenston, and its cargo. Although the ship was bound for Dundee, it docked at Down (now known as Macduff) during the voyage, and the cargo was stolen by a mob. The pursuers applied to the insurance underwriters for indemnification and eventually brought suit against them. However, the underwriters argued that they were not required to pay because the ship-master had deviated from the insured voyage by going to Down and taking on cargo there. Relevant documents are reproduced in an appendix to the defenders’ court filing.
Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns 1786 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Adjudication, Deviation, Sequestration This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy.
Pitcairn v. Whyte and Bannatyne 1796 Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Debt, Aliment, Contract Alexander Pitcairn petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Alexander Whyte and Archibald Bannatyne answered, arguing that Pitcairn had exceeded his authority in securing an extravagant insurance premium and resisting the petition.
Richardson and Co v. Stoner, Hunter, and Ker 1783 Jettison, Debt, Aliment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Fraud This case was about apportioning liability for a cargo of salmon that was partially jettisoned and partially sold for a lower-than-expected price before reaching its planned destination. The owners of the salmon raised an action for damages against their underwriters, as well as the merchants who sold the salmon and the shipmaster-owner of the vessel; they argued that the shipmaster lacked authority to make the sale. The underwriters argued that although the relevant policy covered the jettisoned cargo, it did not apply to a partial loss such as the allegedly premature sale.
Riddell, Petitioner 1798 Sasine, Disposition, Interest, Debt, Trust, Insurance William Riddell, along with Christopher Moubray and separately as trustee for Mrs Charlotte Wood, alias Gillespie, petitioned the Court for authority to distribute proceeds from judicial sales of landed estate. The first petition sought permission to pay a heritable bond secured by lands sold at judicial sale, and a later petition requested warrant for payment of the balance due from the sale of the Craigdarroch estate lands. The litigation thus comprised successive applications for judicial sanction to discharge encumbrances and trust obligations from the sale funds.
Ross v. Forbes, Hunter, and Company 1792 Agent, Interlocutor, Insurance, Creditor, Debt, Statute Donald Ross petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in an action against Forbes, Hunter, and Company regarding liability for damages. The defenders answered petitions by Catharine Ross and Alexander Mackenzie by arguing that they were not liable because the broker and underwriters were directly responsible. The litigation thus turned on whether the defenders could avoid liability by attributing responsibility to these third parties.
Simon Berard v. Robert Hunter 1792 Debt, Aliment, Insurance, Contract, Creditor, Disposition Suit by Simon Berard of Berard, Freres & Co. and Alexander Young, W.S. his attorney to recover against Mr. Hunter for the value of Madeira wine sold in Calcutta for an amount to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of muslin consigned by Mr. Hunter to Messrs Berard aboard the Carnatic. The muslins were lost during the return journey to Lorient when the Carnatic was seized by the Liverpool Privateer the Mentor. Although Messrs Berard had contracted to procure insurance for the cargo, the breakout of war between France and England in 1778 (six months after the contract was signed) caused a hike in insurance prices and the goods were only insured for 10,000 livres tournois instead of the £3,000 agreed to in the contract. Berard argued the change in circumstances excused his failure to insure and sued for £1,764, the value of the Madeira less the insurance money recovered. Defender countersued for the difference between the Madeira and the muslin. The court held that in mercantile practice a contract to insure imposes an absolute and unconditional obligation, thus Messrs Berard were required to acquire insurance in either England or France. No expenses due by defender. Berard issued a reclaiming petition, but while the answers were being prepared, Mr. Berard and other members of his family suffered death by guillotine.

Turnbull v. Rankines and Black 1794 Arrestment, Oath, Debt, Adjudication, Insurance, Sequestration David Turnbull, a baker in Glasgow, pursued James and John Rankines, merchants in Greenock, and John Black, master of the Sloop Clyde, for the loss of two tons of biscuit shipped in 1793, alleging that improper stowage and negligent navigation had caused the vessel's wreck. The defenders answered that the loss was occasioned by storm rather than improper loading, and subsequently petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced against them.
William Palmer v. Charles Hutton 1783 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Recompence, Property, Insurance William Palmer, as charger, pursued Charles Hutton, as suspender, over the lawfulness of a vessel purchase and whether Palmer’s claim for recompence was barred. Hutton answered in 1783 that the purchase was lawful and the claim not barred, and after the court found the vessel property remained with Palmer and refused Alexander Abercromby’s petition for suspension, Abercromby petitioned in 1785 to have that interlocutor altered.
Yelton and others v. Smith and others 1801 Adjudication, Insurance, Prize, Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration The ship "Diana," which was owned by the pursuers, recaptured an English ship called the "Lady Bruce" from a French privateer. The pursuers purchased an insurance policy of £400 on the salvage. However, the Diana lacked any letters of marque giving it the legal right to seize property from the enemy. After the "Lady Bruce" was recaptured by a Dutch schooner, the pursuers sued the underwriters, the defenders, for the amount due under their policy. The defenders argued that because the Diana had no letters of marque, the pursuers never possessed an insurable interest in the Lady Bruce; therefore, according to the defenders, the insurance policy was void.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 273)