| Short Title: | Life Assurance Act 1774 |
| Type: | Act |
| Parliament: | Parliament of Great Britain |
| Long Title: | An Act for regulating Insurances upon Lives, and for prohibiting all such Insurances except in cases where the Persons insuring shall have an Interest in the Life or Death of the Persons insured. |
| Year: | 1774 |
| Citation: | 14 Geo. 3. c. 48 |
| Territorial Extent: | Great Britain |
| Amendments: | Statute Law Revision Act 1888 |
| Related Legislation: | Life Insurance (Ireland) Act 1866 |
| Status: | Amended |
| Use New Uk-Leg: | yes |
The Life Assurance Act 1774[1] (14 Geo. 3. c. 48, also known as the Gambling Act 1774[2] [3]) was an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of Great Britain, which received royal assent on 20 April 1774.[4] The Act prevented the abuse of the life insurance system to evade gambling laws. It was extended to Ireland by the Life Insurance (Ireland) Act 1866, and is still in force. Prior to the Act, it was legally possible for any person to take out life insurance on any other person, regardless of whether or not the beneficiary of the policy had any legitimate interest in the person whose life was insured. As such, the system of life insurance provided a legal loophole for a form of gambling: an insurance policy could be taken out on an unrelated third party, stipulating whether or not they would die before a set date, and relying on chance to determine if the "insurer" or "policy-holder" would profit by this event.
The act has only four sections:
Sections 2 and 3 were amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1888, and the requirement in section 2 to name the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy was relaxed by section 50 of the National Insurance (Amendment) Act 1972, to allow insurance for a defined class or description of person.
The defendant company in the important contract law case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1898) had attempted unsuccessfully to rely the sections to avoid paying the claimant the fixed sum (£100), to any customer, for suffering from influenza despite using the ball.[5] Such defence would have required the law viewing the reward as more of an assurance policy than a term suitable for a goods contract.
The Act did not define what an "insurable interest" was, and it has since been held as the definite expectation of suffering a financial loss directly due to someone's death. It is generally accepted that a person has an insurable interest in the life of someone financially supporting them - for example, in the life of their parent whilst they are still a juvenile - but that this interest can cease if the situation changes. In a 1904 case, it was held that a man insuring the life of his elderly mother to pay funeral expenses, where he was not at all dependent upon her, was void.[6] However, note that as long as an insurable interest existed at the time the policy was created, it remains valid even if the interest later ceases.[7]
A person is considered to have an unlimited interest in their own life[8] or in that of their spouse, a case the law considers broadly equivalent; even if not financially dependent on the other, it is legitimate to insure against their death.[9] This does not reliably extend to cohabiting couples, however: whilst many insurers will accept such policies, as they have not been tested in court some could be invalid. Since the 2000s strong moves have intensified to pass clear statutory provisions in this regard, which have not yet borne fruit.[10] The applicability to spouses was extended to civil partners under section 253 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
The Act co-governs (with other law) policies of life insurance, including investments that are packaged under the umbrella of life assurance, such as endowment policies used to pay off mortgages.[11]