A jet ski was clearly included within the term “waterborne craft”. Regulation 3(2) of the 1994 Regulations provides that “insofar as it is in plain, intelligible language, no assessment shall be made of the fairness” of a term defining the main subject matter of the contract. The insurance contract was subject to the 1994 Regulations and the term at issue defined the main subject matter of the contract. However, the exclusion of “waterborne craft” from the policy was in plain and intelligible language and thus excluded from assessment as to fairness.
The 1994 Regulations applied to conditions in the policy requiring claimants to report accidents in good time and forward communication in connection with the claim. Such conditions, which seek to exclude insurers’ liability to meet a claim notwithstanding that no prejudice has been caused by a breach, could cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ obligations to the insured’s detriment within Reg. 4(1) and render them unfair (authority of House of Lords judgment in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52). However, if such provisions were to be found inherently unfair in the terms of Reg. 5(1) (and therefore were not binding on the insured) a corollary difficulty would be experienced of unfairness to the insurer in having to meet claims when its position had been prejudiced.
Two solutions are possible: (1) to treat the clauses as innominate terms or (2) to hold that it was only the part of the clause which denied recovery, irrespective of the consequence of breach, that was not binding on the insured. This is consistent with the spirit of Reg. 5(2) (“the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term”).
Full text: Full text