All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2017Da254600 Decided May 30, 2019 【Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Regarding an insurance contract according to which the insured is guaranteed a fixed payout upon the death or injury of an unspecified number of individuals that occurred over an extended period of time, in the event that the insured is in a position to assume monetary liability regarding the death or injury of such unspecified number of individuals and concluded said insurance contract for coverage of such legal liability, whether insured benefit is recognizable pursuant to the U.K. Life Assurance Act (affirmative) [2] In a case where: (a) Stock Company A and Insurance Company B concluded an insurance contract, governed by U.K. law, according to which the regional coverage scope was limited to the South Pole, the insured parties consisted of a substantial number of flight attendants and passengers who would be boarding a helicopter flown and managed by Company A, and Company B would pay a defined death or injury benefit to Company A in the event the flight attendants or passengers either died or sustained injuries while boarding or flying during the insurance policy period; (b) when a passenger was injured due to an accident during the insurance policy period in which Company A’s helicopter toppled over while landing in the South Pole; and (c) upon having paid the entire insurance money to Company A and having received a written payment confirmation, Company B filed a claim against Company A seeking restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the foregoing insurance payout by asserting that the pertinent insurance contract was invalid as there was no insured benefit on the part of Company A, the case holding that: (a) inasmuch as Company A (policyholder)’s insured benefit is recognized in light of the overall circumstances; (b) the lower judgment deeming the insurance contract in question as valid under U.K. law is tenable; and (c) in so determining, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine |
|
