“仙童飞地”国际能源集团有限公司诉苏黎世保险有限公司不当得利案

K. Krishnaprasad
{"title":"“仙童飞地”国际能源集团有限公司诉苏黎世保险有限公司不当得利案","authors":"K. Krishnaprasad","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc\",\"authors\":\"K. Krishnaprasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-01\",\"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/10.1111/1468-2230.12306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12306","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

摘要

在国际能源集团诉苏黎世保险案中,最高法院考虑了仙童诉格伦黑文殡葬服务有限公司一案中特别规则对保险公司的影响’为雇主# 8217;责任。法院面临的问题是,根据其早先在Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd的判决,保险公司是否可以对雇员承担责任。间皮瘤索赔,即使雇主在整个雇佣期间没有投保。七名大法官一致认为,保险公司’责任与保险期间成比例。在达成这一结果的过程中,大多数人认识到保险公司有权获得公平赔偿。向投保雇主提供他们未投保期间的信息。这篇文章用不公正的浓缩镜头批评了赔偿权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc
In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Demand for Health Insurance in the Time of COVID-19: Evidence from the Special Enrollment Period in the Washington State ACA Marketplace Licensing the Insured: Providing Driver Licenses to Unauthorized Immigrants Has Not Impacted Auto Insurance in California Terrorism Risk Insurance Act: Time to Renew . . . or Rethink? Loss of ‘Unattended Property in a Public Place’ – Testing the Good Faith of the Travel Insurer The Insurance Business in Transition to the Physical-Cyber Market: Communication, Coordination and Harmonization of Cyber Risk Coverages
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1