Answer

Law

Question 1

a)

In David’s case, the tort law that would suffice is the medical malpractice liability law. Established in 1948, the law addresses how the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK manages the negligence issue. The practice of this law is bestowed upon medical institutions rather than an individual. The NHS and all Health Authorities are indirectly liable for any negligent act as well as omissions of their task force- including clinicians, doctors, and nurses (“Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress”, 2021). This liability ascends from the duty of care that medical institutions owe to their patients. The application of the suggested liability has forced to UK government to enact the NHS indemnification policy, which comes into play when an employee registered by the NHS when performing his/her duty is responsible for an omission or a negligent act that causes harm to a patient of a volunteer.

David, who goes to a local hospital to seek medication regarding the injuries at his knee finds himself in this situation. According to the medical practitioners, it was suggested that David should be taken through an operation to repair the damaged knee (Goldberg, 2012). Despite signing a medical consent form regarding the associated risks, it was established that a medical swab was accidentally left in his knee causing infections that promoted the amputation of the affected leg. By virtue that the medical swab was left in David’s knee, it becomes evident that the medical practitioners were negligent with their work. The slackness of the health caregivers led to more harm on David’s health hence making them liable to the damages.

According to the medical malpractice liability law, when a medical professional becomes negligent when undertaking their duties, the medical institution will have to accept full financial responsibility and not seek to recuperate the medical practitioner involved (McHale, 2003). When omission of negligence is alleged, the Health Authority is liable to meet the administrative and legal cost of defending the proposed claim or, if necessary, of settling/agreement: the plaintiff’s cost, as contracted by the two parties or as suggested by the court; (and) the damages awarded as either a structured settlement or a one-off payment.

In the UK, the patient complaining about medical malpractice ought to prove four legal elements to instigate a successful claim of medical malpractice (“Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress”, 2021). These requirements include the existence of harm/damages that emanate from the injury inflicted by the medical professional, a casual correlation between a breach of medical duty and harm/injury to the patient, a breach of medical duty by the failure/malpractice of the treating medical personnel to follow the stated standards of the profession, and the existence of a legal medical duty on the part of a medical practitioner to offer treatment or provide care to the patient. 

After a decision is passed by the suggested methods, the Health Authority indemnity will only cover the financial consequences of a medical negligence action, not disciplinary, or regulatory hearings, or complaints, and does not extend to primary care physicians, voluntary agencies, local education authorities, workers of private hospitals, self-employed medical care professional, optometrists, pharmacists or general dental practitioner (McHale, 2003). In line with this assumption, the local hospital, but not the doctors who carried out the operation, will be liable to the financial expenses linked to John’s case if his legal claims are justified by a judge. 

b)

To productively defend against a negligence suit, the hospital (defendant) will try to deny one of the rudiments of the plaintiff’s cause of action (Miller, 1985). In broader prospects, the hospital will produce evidence that it exercised reasonable care, did not owe a duty to the plaintiff, and so on. Similarly, the defendant will depend on one of a few dogmas that may limit or eliminate liability based on assumed negligence. 

In John’s case, the doctrine that would be applicable is the assumption of risk. This policy suggests that when a patient assumes the risks involved in a suggested intervention, which is considered dangerous, but proceeds to be part of the activity regardless, he or she may miss the chance to recover damages/harm for injuries(“Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress”, 2021). For this doctrine to apply the patient must have actual and subjective knowledge of the apparent risks linked to the proposed action. The patient must as well voluntarily agree to the risks associated with the activity. The presumption of risk defense would hardly apply to any additional or unknown dangers.

Prior to David being taken through an operation, the medical practitioners at the local hospital had to ensure that he was well informed about the risks. The doctors went as s far as giving James a form to sign as a way of affirming that he was ready to face the repercussions, which in this case was the amputation of the affected leg (Miller, 1985). In this argument, it would mean that neither the doctors nor the local hospital could be liable for any harm inflicted to James during and after the treatment intervention. 

Another defense that the hospital would rely on to avoid being liable to David’s injury is contributory negligence. According to this doctrine, the defendant will have to argue that James did not take any precautionary measures to avoid getting injured. In layman’s language, the plaintiff could have avoided injuring his knee if he was not negligent (“Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress”, 2021). However, the defendant will have to provide tangible proof that the plaintiff was oblivious to avoiding the injury. 

In line with contributory negligence, the defendant could rest their argument on comparative negligence. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff will lose his recovery if it is proved that he was at the fault of his injury.

Question 2

a)

According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumers are entitled to a refund if the seller does not meet the expectations of the previous agreement. This means that if the product or services does not satisfy the consumer (as per the propositions attached to the product or service). In line with a canceled concert, because the artist fell ill, all individuals who bought tickets for the event are allowed to ask for a refund/compensation from the seller (Rodger, 2015). Under this law, a consumer will get a full refund if he/she asks for a refund within 30 days. After this period, sellers will not be liable to compensate for the consumer’s ticket because it will be assumed that the consumer was not interested in his or her investment in the canceled event. What’s more, no deductions will be imposed on the refund, suggesting that the consumer will have to receive a full amount of what he/she had spent to purchase the ticket. 

The Consumer Rights Act assumes that when a consumer purchases products or services from a trader, both individuals enter into a legally binding contract. For the agreed terms to be binding, they ought to be part of the initiated contract as well as legal (Rodger, 2015). Terms offer to the consumer after a successful purchase are not to be included in the contract and they will have no effect in case issues arise from the bought goods or services. A contract could be verbal but it is always advisable if the details are put into writings. 

• All services following this should be carried out in the following ways:
• Services should be undertaken within a reasonable time.
• Service should be undertaken at a reasonable price
• Information, either verbal or written, given to the consumer is binding with the law and the consumer should be able to rely on it. 
• Service should be undertaken with reasonable care as well as skill. 

The Consumer Rights Act comprises equivalent as well as protections to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (Bakar et al., 2018). This suggests that though there may arise some technical differences in the way these facets are implemented, from a client’s point of view there would be no alteration- under the Consumer Rights Act the client may claim that a term is biased in the same method as they would have been applied under the aforementioned Acts.

In other words, the law establishes a fairness test to help consumers from being put in a disadvantaged position. With the law, a term is purported as unfair if it alters the rights as well as the responsibilities between the trader and the consumer to the point that it favors the trader (Bakar et al., 2018). The unfair tests are applied by analyzing the type of words used in the agreement and how they could be interpreted. The test considered the products or services being sold and what the terms mentioned in the contract say. 

In Hayley’s case, assuming that he bought the ticket from a genuine seller, he is entitled to a full refund. However, Haley will receive his compensation if he acts quickly with the complaint. Similarly, he will have to ensure that his grievance is valid in that he will have to present the original ticket he bought from the seller. Harley will have to first sort the issue out with the management of the event or the customer service (Rodger, 2015). Respectively, he will have to be objective with his complaint and being polite when addressing the issue. In most cases, these departments tend to deal with people who are annoyed and their response is relatively the same. A polite acquisition will invite a positive response from the seller. If Harley would not be able to physically meet with the manager or customer service or the even, he could send an email to either of the departments spelling out his reasons clearly and coercively.

b)

Aside from being entitled to get a full refund on the cost, he incurred to attain the concert ticket, Harley is also entitled to recover the cost of the train ticket. This entitlement is covered under the consequential loss from a canceled event. In case of a breach of contract that is the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a consumer is entitled to consequential loss such as hotel or travel cost that one had booked before the event ensured. In this case, the law gives so much consideration that it is unfair for one to lose on travel cost or be unable to recover the cost of the hotel. Since the event was canceled by the organizers, it becomes evident that they have breached the initial contract they entered with Harley (Ogunsipe, 2015). This means that Harley will be unable to visit the predetermined destination, and since he had made orders with regards to his transportation, the transportation industry is obliged to refund him of the initial cost without factoring in any discount. In the unlikely event that Harley has incurred other costs, he should claim for the same under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

Question 3

a)

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the art dealer Antonio chose to act on his behalf during an auction is allowed to exercise all the duties of the buyer in the following ways

• The dealer is allowed to make offers to the seller/agent to purchase the art by a private treaty whereby the offer will be deemed to be set on these terms and subject to any distinctive conditions featured in an acknowledgment, particulars of sale, any catalog tender document or otherwise notified to the dealer in writing (Baron, 1991).
• The dealer will submit a bid for the desired art. The dealer is allowed to make an offer to the seller or agent to purchase the specific product on the set terms and will be subject to any distinctive conditions featured in an acknowledgment, particulars of sale, any catalog tender document, or otherwise notified to the dealer in writing.
• The dealer has complete discretion in making any bid.
• The dealer is allowed to bid higher than the competitors so that he can acquire the art on behalf of Antonio.
• The dealer will not be allowed to cancel a contract formed after the bidding process.
• The dealer is solely responsible for investigating and inspecting the art prior to the actual sale by private treaty or auction to ascertain that all matters related to the art including its description, merchantability, purpose, quality, condition, and fitness.
• The dealer shall be entitled to conduct a purchase of the art by any method he/she considers appropriate as well as impose any special condition deemed fit in the apparent circumstance. 
• In case of a dispute emanating between the dealer and any other person in the auction regarding the sale of the art, the dealer will be deemed responsible for the actions that will ensue.
• The price payable by the dealer for the art sold during the auction shall be the amount he/she offered as bid, plus the dealer’s premium specified in the auction catalog and value-added tax- only if it is applicable (Jern & Kin, 1997).
• The dealer will have to cater for the additional charges that are applicable in the purchasing process such as loading, disconnection of utilities, delivery, etc. as stipulated in the sell-out or auction sale details.
• The dealer will act as the agent of the buyer (Antonio) and gives no warranty as to the buyer’s title to the art being purchased. 
• Legal, as well as equitable title to the goods, shall be passed to Antonio’s dealer once the seller has received full payment in the proposed funds of all sums due to the seller and the dealer has removed the art from the premises, provided that the art shall not be released to the dealer until full payment has been received (Jern & Kin, 1997).
• Despite acting on behalf of Antonio, the title of the intellectual property shall not be transferred to the dealer but to the buyer (Antonio). Any use by the dealer of the art (including without limitation to computer software) shall be considered a part of the terms on the established intellectual property rights and any existing license linked to the art.
• All risks associated with the art being purchased shall be passed to the dealer from and inclusive of the date the contract was established. The dealer will have to obtain adequate insurance cover for the art being purchased from the set date as the agent/seller shall not be liable for any loss of, damage to, theft of the art after the purchase (Taylor, 2018).
• If after the contract is established and the dealer discovers that the agent/seller does not have unencumbered title or general title of the art, both the dealer is allowed to revoke the contract. In such a scenario, the seller/agent will be required to pay any amount paid by the dealer and the seller/dealer shall not be liable to the buyer.
• Antonio’s dealer is allowed to revoke the purchase if he/she acknowledges as well as accepts that the art being purchased contains deleterious or hazardous substances and materials.
• The dealer is allowed to reject purchasing the art if he/she acknowledges or accepts that the product does not comply with the apparent health and safety legislation during inspection or at the time the art is being sold (Taylor, 2018).
• The dealer is allowed to suggest whether the art requires special handling or is suitable for public use before it is removed from the premises or during the subsequent transfer and utilization.
• The dealer is allowed to undertake with the agent/seller that before using the product being purchased, that they should undertake or plant to carry out testing as well as an examination of the art to ensure that it is constructed and designed to be safe and has health risks when it will be in use.
• The dealer is allowed to make arrangements with the seller to make prior arrangements for the safe removal of the art and shall instigate the proposed removal strategy under close supervision by the seller during the selected date or time (Baron, 1991).
• Before removing the art, Antonio’s dealer shall at his/her own expense and whenever necessary procure the carrying out the process of the merchandise. Respectively he/she is allowed to assess the risks of dismantling, detaching disconnecting, or removing the art from the premise. 

b)

• Antonio is legally bound to pay the full amount of the purchased art after his dealer has entered into a private treaty with the seller. The agreement justifies that the prices offered by Antonio’s dealer are the precise amount that the actual buyer would pay after the auction (Jern & Kin, 1997).
• Antonio is also bound to pay the full amount after the bid offered by his dealer is set at the final purchasing price after the auction.
• Antonio is liable to make full payment after the seller sends them the full invoice of the product inclusive of the extra charges. The invoice will contain the specified currencies and the terms required to be followed to complete the sale.
• Antonio is bound to pay the full amount of the product after his dealer agrees that the art is in good condition (Baron, 1991).
• Antonio is bound to pay the full amount after the title to all intellectual property rights attached to the art are transferred to his name.

Question 4

a)

The 2015 Insurance Act applies to every commercial contract of insurance as well as variations to the current contracts of insurance. The law introduces what the UK government has been describing as the most effective reform to all insurance contracts laws in over a century. Initially, insured parties were recommended to disclose all apparent circumstances that they are aware of which would help an insurer in establishing a premium of determining whether to undertake a certain risk (Costabel, 2015). The law incurred insured parties to foretell, without strict guidance, what facets as a hypothetical adept would be instigated by. The same compulsion is extended to brokers or third parties acting on behalf of insured parties.

The second part of the Act has established a new ‘duty of fair representation’ focused on encouraging active, instead of a passive, engagement by insurers and to clarify as well as specify presumed or known matters (Kendall & Wright, 2017). Prior to entering into a contract of insurance, the parties being insured will be recommended to disclose either: all incidences they are aware of that would determine the judgment of the insurer in determining whether to insure the described risk and the terms to follow, or satisfactory information to place an insurer on notice that further enquires have to be made regarding potential material circumstances.

The parties being insured will be considered to be familiar with:

• The matters that are presumed to be revealed by a judicious search of information available- such as information held by a broker or within an organization.
• Anything is known by the broker responsible for the insurance.
• Insured parties will also be considered to have information of any individual who is part of the organization or who is responsible for the suggested insurance.

Insurers will be deemed to be aware of:

• Matters of people who will act on behalf of the insurer in determining whether to undertake the risk in line with the apparent terms such as underwriting teams.
• Information held by the insurer as well as the readiness of the individual determines whether to undertake the risk.
• Matters well-known by an agent or employee of the insurer and should have reasonably been conveyed to the individual determining whether to undertake the risk.

In this respect, Carla’s case regarding the intent to get insurance for the lost phone she found on the street but the owner has not yet claimed would suffice (Costabel, 2015). Carla’s intention to insure the phone is to solely justify that she owns the phone, which is why she chose to misrepresent or avoid disclosing the matters about the phone. To depend on non-disclosure or misrepresentation, the party seeking insurance must have been instigated by misrepresentation that is she was aware of the true position and was certain that the insurer would have changed the terms or have refused to undertake the risk.

The reason why Carla’s insurance to the lost phone would be valid is that the 2015 Act allows the insured to not disclose matters that:

• Were known by the insurer
• Diminished the risk
• Were waivered by a third party or the insurer
• Were matters of collective notoriety
• Were unessential because of a warranty attached to the policy

In line with Carla’s life of Carla’s childminder, the insurance policy being sought would be considered valid. Under the current law on life insurance to a consumer taking insurance on another individual’s life, the individual (Carla’s childminder) who is being insured will be asked questions regarding their health status or age so that the insurer could determine whether to underwrite the risk. Nevertheless, this individual is not part of the contract. In line with the current law, Carla’s childminder is not obliged to disclose any information, and if necessary they can misrepresent their position. This will not offer the insurer the right to revoke the policy uncles the insurer is aware of the misrepresentation. 

In line with the rare book collection belonging to Carla’s son, acquiring an insurance policy of the same in her name would be invalid. According to the glossary of property insurance, the party being insured has to prove that the property under this subject belongs to her. Apparently, this rare book collection does not belong to Carla, though its location is close to her house. Regardless, this does not prove that Carla is liable to insure the collection of books under her name. Upon close supervision, the insurer will realize that the property in question does not belong to Carla. However, if Carla conceals the actual information regarding the ownership of the rare books collection, the insurer will have to consider Carla as the legal custodian of the property.  

As for William’s case, Carla’s intention of seeking life insurance from her debtor would be considered valid. An individual’s debt does not end simply because he/she has died. After a debtor dies, the creditor is allowed to seek repayment of the initial debt from the debtor’s property. In some cases, debtors may have insurance cover under which the insurer will cater to the compensation to the beneficiaries stated in the plan (Kendall & Wright, 2017). However, some debtors would not be having any life insurance cover indicating that the creditors will have to go an extra mile to claim their debt from the beneficiaries if they are not listed in the policy. According to the life insurance law in the UK, a creditor is allowed to insure the life of the debtor as the beneficiary of his/her estate after death. In this case, the creditor is allowed by law, while still alive, to ask the debtor to specify him/her as the beneficiary in the debtor’s life insurance plan. 

b)

Most insurance firms tend to inquire about one’s conviction since they believe that is this relevant to the risk that is to be established. Despite the exercise being deemed as unfair, the insurance companies are, unfortunately, required to obtain this information. If a person seeking insurance is asked this question, he/she is required to answer the question with accuracy and honesty (Merkin & Gürses, 2016). The question will entail convictions of every individual to be covered in the policy, such as a spouse or children. Respectively, if one is not asked such questions by the insurer, then there is no need to disclose any information. 

Under the insurance disclosure policy, the onus is on the party being insured to answer all questions presented by the insurer fully as well as accurately. This was before an alteration was initiated in the insurance policy. Initially, the party being insured had to disclose all factual matters regarding the entities subject to the insurance policy. After the change, the party benefiting from the insurance policy has been allowed to conceal crucial information related to the presented questions on an entity set to be featured in an identified insurance plan. According to part 4 of the Insurance Act 2015, the effect of concealing the conviction on the validity of the phone that Carla is claiming ownership is that the insurer will not be liable to pay the misrepresented claim. If the insurer realizes that Carla was a convict, the company is required to revoke the risks associated with the gadget (Costabel, 2015). In line with insuring the life of Carla’s childminder, the insurer, after realizing that Carla had concealed vital information regarding her conviction, will terminate the policy and keep all the premiums that could have been paid. As for the rare books collection belonging to her eldest son, the insurer all amounts paid in respect to the concealed information. Relatively, the insurer will also apply the same rights to the life insurance of her debtor as it would be applied to the childminder. Since the insurer expects Carla to respect the virtue of ‘utmost good faith’ when presenting the matter, discovering that Carla had given a fraudulent claim would mean that the insurer is allowed to revoke the contract and retain any premiums paid. In case Carla’s debtor dies, the insurer will not consider Carla as the beneficiary or the claimant of his assets.

In most cases, when a person seeking insurance cover discloses everything that the insurer has asked, there would hardly be any problem when issuing the policy. If the subject conceals information especially relating to conviction matters, the insurance company will likely avoid the policy (Kendall & Wright, 2017). This suggests that the insurer will treat the policy as if it never existed and will not be liable to payout on one’s claim even if the individuals had already paid premiums. Respectively, the subject will be unable to replace what he/she had insured such as a business, car, or a house.

c)

Life insurance is primarily based on a person’s age, health status as well as lifestyle. This means that the older a person is and if he/she has a pre-existing medical condition, the more he/she will pay for the premiums as compared to a younger as well as a healthy individual. Lying to one’s life insurance application is relatively tempting since it gives the claimant a better quote. Regardless of the insurer realizing that the party seeking insurance is lying the probability of the policy being revoked would be certain (Merkin & Gürses, 2016). In most cases, insurers don’t want to support risky situations as they may be detrimental to their businesses. All the same, many people seeking insurance tend to lie or conceal certain information as it will save them to get affordable premiums. In the case of Carla’s childminder, Carla has decided to lie about the payment process of the subject. According to Carla, the childminder is considered to be employed on a full-time basis. This claim signifies that the subject is a less risky asset. Therefore, the premiums that Carla will have to pay for the childminder’s life insurance would be insignificant. 

Question 5

a)

According to the Road Traffic Act 1988, all motor vehicles in the UK are required to have insurance cover. In other words, it was illegal for one to use a motor vehicle in a public place or on the road unless it had insurance that covered legal liability for damager of property or causing injury (Rix, 1996). Since 2011, it has been illegal to keep a motor vehicle without the necessary insurance unless the concerned body has been informed that it is ‘off road’. In line with adhering to the requirement so, of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, all motor policies must comply with some European Union Motor Insurance Directives.

With this policy, there are four distinct levels of cover available.

• Comprehensive
• Third-party only
• Road Traffic Act only
• Third-party, fire as well as theft

The road traffic act cover offers the following cover:

• Indemnity for bodily injury or demise caused to third parties, inclusive of passengers and the amount ought to be unlimited.
• Indemnity for damage or loss of property belonging to passengers of third parties. 
• Indemnity for the costs and expenses of the claimants handling the claim.
• Liability to individuals in the employment of the insured vehicle when traveling as a passenger in the course of the incident.
• Charges for apparent emergencies, hospital charges, and medical treatment emanating from the utilization of the vehicle. 

The third-party only policy covers the following:

• A maximum of £20 million for property damage to third parties.
• Legal costs to be incurred during the defense of the claim
• Indemnity to third parties, business partners, employers, or passengers should be held countable for an accident.
• Indemnity to any individual who is driving or utilizing the vehicle on the insured’s permission or order. In reality, it is common for the insured to consider restricting cover to named individuals, husband or wife in return for a premium saving.
• Indemnity for all accidents that occur even though the insured is using or driving a vehicle does not belong to him/her. Nevertheless, not insurers offer this extension or they may be providing it to specific policyholders. 
• The cover is extended to apply even though the insured care is being used or driven on private land, road, or public place. 

The comprehensive cover included all cover under a third party fire as well as theft policy and the following:

• Loss of damage to individual belongings as well as clothing. This policy operates within the limits of £100-£250.
• Medical expenses cover passengers and the insured. This policy operates within the limits of £100-£250.
• Personal cover for the insured as well as spouse.
• Malicious or accidental damage to the insured’s vehicle. 

In line with observing these rules, insurance companies have policies to which all policyholders have to adhere. Following the case of Philip, it is evident that his insurer had listed specific policies that the insured was required to observe in case of an accident (Officer, 2009). One of the specified policies was that all insured individuals ought not to admit liability on the scene without writing a consent letter to the insurer. If the insured breaks this rule, the insurer will not be liable for any losses incurred during an accident. 

Despite being aware of this policy, Philip goes on to apologize to the victim for his actions. Upon further investigations, it becomes evident that Philip’s car had faulty breaks. This is a clear indication that Philip was on the wrong side of the case (Marson, Ferris & Nicholson, 2017). Although Philip reports the matter to his insurer, the liability of all costs linked to the case will be directed to him. This is because he violated the terms and conditions of the contracts that he entered with the insurer. Philip may deem this action unfair but according to the Insurance Act 2015, insurance companies are required to formulate warranties that policyholders should be aware of before commitment. 

In line with this Act, all warranties apply to the representations considered by the policyholder in connection with a suggested non-consumer insurance contract or a suggested distinction to a non-consumer insurance agreement (Stark, O’keefe & Rowe, 2000). Such a representation is not allowed to be changed into a warranty through the specified provision of the terms of variation or the non-consumer insurance agreement or of any other agreement (and whether by suggesting the representation to formulate the basis of the agreement or otherwise).

In section 10 of the Act, the insured is subjected to observe the policy but if he/she breaches the contract then the liability of the associated expenses rests upon them. The breach of warranty suggests that:

1. Any proposed rule of law that a breach of a warranty (implied or expressed) in any contract of insurance affects in dismissal of the insurer’s liability under the same contract is revoked.
2. Any insurer is not liable under a specified contract of insurance in line with any loss that has occurred, or attributable to an action, after a warranty (implied or expressed) in the specified contract has been breached but before the beach being remedied. 
3. The second subsection will not be applicable if:

1. The insurer relinquishes the breach of warranty.
2. Compliance with the warranty is considered unlawful by the rule of law.
3. Because of alterations in different circumstances, the warranty becomes inapplicable to a circumstance featured in the contract.

b)

Other than the claim of the cyclist to the insurance company, the insurer will attest that Philip is the one liable for the damages related to his car. When signing the contract with the insurer, Philip was aware of the policies regarding the liability of a damaged vehicle in line with its condition. According to the insurer, all vehicles under this policy have to be maintained at all times so that their conditions could be roadworthy. However, after the police carried the investigations into the incident, it was apparent that Philip’s car had defective brakes. Therefore, the insured had not taken into consideration the condition of his car before driving. Philip may attest to this claim but according to subjection 10 of the Insurance Act 2015:

1. The second subsection does not impact the liability of the insurance company in respect to harm or losses attributable to events occurring:

1. Before a breach of the specified warranty.
2. When the breach has been remedied.

1. In line with this section, a breach to a specified warranty is to be assumed remedies

• . If the insured, in any other case, is considered to have breached the warranty.

1. If the risk associated with the warranty correlates to what the concerned parties originally contemplated and agreed on specific terms.
2. The requirements of the warranty have not been complied with.

In most cases, a breach of insurance agreement can make the insurer liable for bad faith. Many clients who would be anticipated to enter into a contract with the insurance company would consider other options after realizing that the insurer will not be liable for damages of the policy holder’s vehicle (“Insurance Act 2015”, 2021). All insurance companies owe the policyholder a duty of good faith as well as hearing. In bad faith action, the business practice of an insurance company or a defined course of action is regularly admissible to show plan, intent, opportunity, knowledge, motive, or the absence of a slipup or accident in a way which it could be handled by the insured. 

No insurance aspires to repel clients. In this perspective, Philip’s insurance company is subject to treating him fairly by determining whether it could be liable to his case. Usually, the insurer would be compelled to pay for the damages on Philip’s car considering that the insured has been paying premiums. Without this consideration, the insurer will be acting in bad faith to cater to Philip’s claim. However, Philip seems to behave breached the contract prior to the incident (“Insurance Act 2015”, 2021). Therefore, Philip will be the one liable for the damages inflicted on his car. This does not necessarily show that the insurance company intended to cause harm to Philip in terms of breaching their initial contract. Philip only has to prove that the insurance company failed to honor the treaty and has no cause to revoke liability to what was due under the contract. When an individual purchases an insurance policy, the listed risks that the insurance caters for make it clear that if a client’s claim is not met the insured will suffer emotional distress and financial pressure.