Actually this is my major assignment which carry 35 marks out of 85.And out of these i had already given my midterm test for 15 marks.so i dont want to take any risk regarding this assignment and its...

Australian Law
Jason vs. Allinsurance
Jason vs. Allinsurance
Sof
University of Ballarat
03/09/2012
Jason vs. Allinsurance
Part A
According to Insurance Contracts Act 1984, prior to entering into any policy of insurance it is
the duty of the Jason to disclose to Allinsurance every matter that he knows, or reasonably
supposed to know, is relevant for Allinsurance to make decisions whether to accept the risk
involved or not, and if yes, on what terms. However, the duty does not call for disclosure of a
matter a) that is of common knowledge b) that diminishes the risk c) that insurance company
knows, ought to know d) in respect of which the insurance company has waived compliance
(Anderson v. Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 7 C.P. 65, 1872). In this case, the fact
Jason is hiding in not of a common knowledge and Allinsurance is not supposed to know that. It
is totally a private thing which Jason is aware of and he did not disclose the same to
Allinsurance.
It is the duty of Jason to tell every matter to Allinsurance that they are supposed to know
and that can affect the decision. If Jason is moving in with a partner,, he should convey the same
thing to Allinsurance as this is a very crucial thing the insurance company will know and on the
asis of that they will take their decision whether to have contract or not and if yes, the terms
would not have been the same. The fact is a very crucial thing and that does not diminish the
isk. Jason is supposed to be aware of this fact as it is a matter of common knowledge.
The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 establishes that every insurance contract is nothing but a
statutory obligation on both parties to act with the utmost good faith (s.13). The duty of utmost
good faith calls for an Allinsurance to:
• not delay in payment of claims without any proper cause
• assess claims promptly
Jason vs. Allinsurance
• not turn down to pay any claims without having proper cause
• in some state of affairs, specifically give advice the consumer on risks involved with
policy covers.
While the duty of utmost good faith calls for Jason to:
• reveal all the information relevant to the insurance company’s decision to accept the risk
• not make exaggerated or false claims
• cooperate with the insurance company while making claims
It is still unclear whether Jason hid the information intentionally or unintentionally.
However, he was supposed to do so but he failed. If he was not aware of the fact, he would have
worked out prior to entering into a contract. He should have gained the knowledge of what is to
e disclosed and what not to. If he did it all intentionally, it is nothing but a
each of the
contract and Allinsurance is entitled to refuse to pay the claim. In Permanent Trustee Australia
Ltd v FAI General Insurance Company case, the court held that Permanent Trustee Australia had
hidden the fact that would have affected the decision or terms of contract of FAI and thus FAI
was entitled to refuse to pay the claim.
Of course the elements of the contracts were present in the case of Jason v Allinsurance
which are illustrated as below.
Agreement: The agreement consists of two...