Chief Ojo secured a ₦50,000,000 life assurance policy with Insurer X and another ₦50,000,000 life assurance policy with Insurer Y. At the same time, he insured his luxury yacht, valued at ₦50,000,000, for fire damage with Insurer X for ₦50,000,000 and with Insurer Y for ₦50,000,000. Following an accidental fire that caused the total destruction of the yacht and resulted in Chief Ojo's death, his estate submitted claims for both policy types to both insurers. Which of the following correctly describes the legal entitlement of Chief Ojo's estate under insurance principles?
- The estate collects ₦100,000,000 in total for the life assurance policies, but a maximum total of ₦50,000,000 for the yacht jointly shared between the two insurers.Cevap
- BThe estate collects a maximum of ₦50,000,000 for the life assurance policies and ₦50,000,000 for the yacht, as indemnity limits all insurance contracts strictly to actual financial loss.
- CBoth claims are entirely voided because taking out multiple policies on the same subject matter violates the principle of utmost good faith.
- DThe estate collects ₦100,000,000 for the yacht under the principle of contribution, but only ₦50,000,000 for the life policy under subrogation.
Cevap
The estate collects ₦100,000,000 in total for the life assurance policies, but a maximum total of ₦50,000,000 for the yacht jointly shared between the two insurers.
The correct response recognizes that life assurance is exempt from the principle of indemnity because human life has no quantifiable financial equivalent; therefore, both ₦50,000,000 policies pay out in full (₦100,000,000 total). Property insurance (the yacht), however, strictly adheres to indemnity and contribution, restricting total recovery to the actual loss of ₦50,000,000 shared rateably between the two insurers.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Non-applicability of the Principle of Indemnity to Life Assurance vs Property Insurance
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s