2021/2022

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF INSURANCE READING LIST (L.4109)
Dr. Faisal Mukasa/Mr. Robert Kirunda

Brief Description and Aim of the Course:

This course introduces student to the theory and principles underpinning insurance law in Uganda from a
contractual and regulatory point of view. A strong theoretical emphasis has been added to ensure that
students are exposed to key aspects that are mainstreamed through the various topics covered in the
course. The aim of the course is to enable students learn the major sources and principles of insurance law
through reference to statutes dealing with specific aspects such as the motor vehicles Third party
insurance, marine insurance, and regulation of all forms of insurance business.

To familiarize themselves with the nature of insurance contracts and principles of insurance, a great deal
of time will be spent studying principles of common law. As such, emphasis will be put on the study of
case law in order that students understand how the courts have developed, applied, and modified
established principles of law. Students will be introduced to how recent global events and trends are
affecting the theory and practice of insurance law. Students will be introduced to InsureTech and the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of Insurance Law. To give students an all-
rounded exposure to the theoretical and practical aspects of the course, we will also host seminars,
presentations, and costs in the course of the semester. These will be focused on topical issues that require
a more skilled appreciation of the industry in specified contexts.

By the end of the semester, students will be expected to appreciate the theories of insurance; illustrate a
good grasp of insurance law principles; the applicability of statute and case law and to articulate issues
arising from, and deficiencies, in this area of the law.

A. STATUTES
Insurance Act 2017
Marine Insurance Act No. 11 of 2002
Insurance Regulations 2002
Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Act, cap. 214
Traffic and Road Safety Act, cap.361
Workers Compensation Act, cap. 225

B. RECOMMENDED STUDY TEXTS

J. Birds, (2000) Modern Insurance Law, 5th Ed. Sweet and Maxwell
Collinvaux’s Law of Insurance, Sweet and Maxwell, 7th Edition
E.R. Hardy Ivamy, General principles of insurance, 6th Ed, Butterworth’s
E.R. Ivamy, (1984) Case Book on Insurance Law, Butterworth
Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd Ed) vol.22
J. Lowry, (1999) Law of Insurance
J. Lowry and Phillip Rawlings (2004), Insurance Law, Cases and Materials
MacGillivary and Parkington, (1975) Insurance Law, 6th Edition, Sweet and Maxwell
McGillivray on Insurance Law, 10th Edition.
Muriel Crawford, Law & Life Insurance Contracts, 7th Edition.
McKendrick, Contract Law
Peter and MacDonald, Insurance Contracts

Theoretical and other aspects to be mainstreamed

Page | 1
 2021/2022

During the course of study, students will engage in personal and group research, to acquire a basic
understanding of how key theoretical strands have been or can be applied in the analysis of insurance law
and its practice. Accordingly, in answering the coursework and examination questions that require
exhibition of a student’s analytical skills, one will be expected to base his /her arguments in one of such
theories.

The key theoretical strands students need to address are:

1. Contract Theory-especially will theory, contract as consent, contract as promise, fairness in

contract vis-as-vis freedom of contract.
2. The economic theory of law
3. The Langdalle vs Holmes debates on law-especially contract
4. Gender Theory and
5. Disability Rights Theory

Further, insurance law is part of commercial law, and commercial law is the law of the marketplace.
Accordingly, students will be required to investigate how changes in the marketplace are impacting the
practicality, relevance, and appropriateness of insurance law doctrine. The investigation should cover the
impact of developments in:

1. ICT, in which context students will be required to appreciate the emerging trends and issues in
insuretech;
2. Uganda’s Body Politic; and
3. Regulation.

Methodology
These mainstreaming aspects will be introduced by the subject lecturers using a combination of lecture
and clinical methods. However, the biggest component will be student centered learning. Students will
then be required to engage in research for and review relevant literature.

Historical Background
Basic study references:
Anthony Allot, Essays in Africa law, p.3-10
Issa Shivji, Insurance and Development E.A.L. Rev. Vol. BNo.1
Lawrence Friedman (1959), Law in a Changing Society, Stevenson, and Sons Ltd.

Of interest may be:

D. Mabirizi (1979), Ideals and Realities in Uganda’s Consumer Protection; The Cases of Price Control
and Product Liability, MUK, Vol M325, chapt. 1&2
Companies Act cap 110
The National Insurance Corporation Act Cap. 314

The Nature of and definition of insurance

Section 2-9 Insurance Act
1. Adman Source v. Britam Insurance Limited, HCCS 814 of 2017
Carter v. Boehm (1766) 3 Burr.1905.
2. Wilson v. Janes (1867) L.R. 2 EX 139
3. Prudential Insurance v. I.R.C (1904) 2 KB
4. Medical Defense Union v. Department of Trade [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 499
5. Tomlinson v Hepburn (1966) AC 451

Page | 2
 2021/2022

6. Robertson v Hamilton (1811) 14 East 522

7. Fuji finance v Aetna Insurance [1994] 4All E.R. 1025; 

8. Gould v Curtis (1913) 3 K.B. 84.

9. Allanson Njugi v British Indian General Insurance (1965) EA. 58
10. United Bus Service ltd v. The New Indian Insurance co. ltd (1960) EA. 242
11. Re Egmont’s Trust (1908) 1 Ch. 821
12. Elcock v. Thomson (1949) 2 K.B. 755
13. National Insurance Corporation v Kakugu, Civil Appeal 040/2015 [2016] UGHCCD 136
14. AON(U)LTD v URA, HCCS 04/2008 [2009] UGCOMMC 39
15. Aqua Plumbing (U) Ltd v United Assurance Co. Ltd HCCS 431/2002

The Insurance Relationship and Matrix

By this class, you should have appreciated that an Insurance contract is that of indemnity of the insured
by the insurer. However, there are other indemnity contracts such as a warranty when you purchase a
product. Can that be treated as insurance too? What about the promise by the bank to remit your balance
if you bank account is breached?

a. Indemnity as the basis of the relationship

b. Insurance vs. Other indemnity agreements: This part shall compare insurance contracts
to other indemnity agreements such as warranties that come with products when
purchased. The question is whether these too may be deemed to be insurance since they
involve indemnifying a party?
c. The elements of an insurance contract
i. The policy
ii. Legal entitlement
iii. Provision of money’s worth
iv. Insurable interest
v. Uncertainty/Fortuity
vi. Control
vii. Premium
Further, you need to acquire a basic understanding of the insurance matrix. This includes the underlying
philosophy behind insurance business, that will take you to appreciating why insurance contracts are
entered, as well as the criteria for insurers creating insurance products. This will cover. issues such as, the
sharing of risk, using premiums to create fund pools from which claims will be paid, and the probability
test used in determining viability of insurance products.

CASES
1. Department of Trade and Industry v St Christopher Motorists Association ltd [1974] 1 ALL ER 395
2. Medical Defense Union V. Department of Trade [1979] 2 ALL ER 421

Formation of the contract

Sections 21 and 22 (i) Marine insurance Act

Article: R.A. Hanson, the basis of the contract clause in insurance law
1. Canning v Farquhar (1886) 16 Q.B.D 727
2. General Accident Insurance v. Cronk (1901) 17, 233
3. Taylor v. Allon (1966) 1 Q.B.30
4. Iyrie v Fletches (1777) 2 cowp.666
5. Entores v Miles (1955) 2 Q.B 327

Page | 3
 2021/2022

6. Brinkibon v Stahag Staul (1982) 1 All ER 293

7. Pearl Life v Johnson (1909) 2 K.B. 288
8. Thompson v Adams (1889) 23 Q.B.D 361
9. Re Coleman’s Depositories (1907) 2 K.B.798
10. Yona International v. LRF
11. Longway Suitcase Manufacturing Co. v UAP Insurance (U) Ltd [2014] UGCOMMC 146
12. Kenkom Ltd v Saracen (U) Ltd HCCS 0134/2003 [2007] UGCOMMC 66
13. Walusaga v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd, Misc.App. 966/2016 [2017] UGCOMMC 49
14. Christine Mawadri v. Brit Syndicate HCCS 376/2009
15. Suffish International Foods Processors Uganda Ltd and another v Egypt Air Corporation [2003] 1 EA
330 (SCU)
16. Jadavji Shamji Pandya v The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd [1957] 1 EA 21
17. Jupiter General Insurance Co v Kasanda Cotton Co [1966] 1 EA 252 (CAK)
18. Allanson Njugi v British India General Insurance Co Ltd [1965] 1 EA 58 (SCK)
19. Kenindia Assurance Company Ltd v Kamithi and another [2004] 2 EA 115
20. United Mills Agencies Ltd v R E Harvey, Bray & Co [1952] 1 All ER 225

Construction Insurance Contracts

(A) General Rules of Construction

Consolidated Bathurst Export Ltd v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co. [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888
Pense v. Nothern Life Assurance Co. (1970) 15 O.L.R. 131, 137
Woolfall & Rimmer Ltd v. Moyle [1942] 1 K.B 66, 73
Stevenson v. Reliance petroleum Ltd; Reliance Petroleum Ltd v. Canadian General Insurance Co. [1956]
S.C.R. 936, 953
Cornish v. Accident Insurance Co. (1889) 23 Q.B 453(C.A), 456
Dino Services v Prudential Assurance C. Ltd (1989) 1 ALLER 422
Thompson v Equity Fire Insurance Co. (1910) A.C 592
Leo Rapp Ltd v McClure (1955) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 292
London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bolands Ltd [1924] A.C. 836 (H.L.)
Young v Sun Alliance & London Insurance (1977) 1 W.L.R 104
Cehave v Bremer [1976] Q.B 44, 71
Reardon Smith v Hansen -Tangen [1976] 1 W.L.R 989, 998
Yangtze Assurance v Indemnity Marine [1908] 2 K.B 504, 509
Harvey v North British [1921] A.C 303,311 (PC)
Glen v Lewis (1853) 8 Ex. 607, 618
Yorke v Yorkshire Insurance [1918] 1 K.B. 662, 666

(B) Words in Context

Young v Sun Alliance & London Insurance (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 189
Anderson v Norwich Union [1977] I Lloyd’s Rep. 253

(C) Technical Words

Scragg v U.K Temprance [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep227

Dobson v General Accident [1989] 3 ALLER 927
Grundy v Fulton [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 16

Page | 4
 2021/2022

London & Manchester Plate Glass v Heath [1913] 3 K.B. 411, 416
West India Telegraph Co. v Home & Colonial Marine (1880) 6 Q.B.D 51, 59
Gray v London Assurance [1918] A.C. 101, 108Common Wealth Smelting v. Guardian Royal Exchange
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 608

(D) Wholistic Interpretation

Re George and Goldsmiths Insurance [1899] 1 Q.B 595, 610

Price v Al Ships’ Small Damage Insurance (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 580, 584
Yorkshire Insurance v Campbell [1917] A.C. 218, 224 (PC)
Sun Fire v Hart (1889) 14 App. Cas. 98, 104
Brown’s Claim [1915] 2 Ch. 167, 172
Marine v Anglo-Iranian [1954] 1 W.L.R. 492, 495.
City Taylors v Evans (1927)38 T.L.R. 230.

(E) Conflicting Clauses

Glynn v Margetson [1893 A.C. 351

Berk v Style [1956] 1 Q.B. 180
William v. Agius [1914] A.C. 510
Kaufmann v British Surety Insurance (1959) 45 T.L.R. 399

(F) Use of Recitals

Blascheck v Bussell (1916) 33 T.L.R 74, 75

Anglo-International Bank v. General Accident (1934) 48 Lloyd’s Rep. 151, 155.

(G) Contra proferentem Rule

Smith v Accident (1870) L.R. 5EX. 302

Lake v. Simmons [1927] A.C. 487, 508, 509-512
Haughton v. Trafalgar [1954] 1 Q.B. 247
Young v Sun Alliance & London Insurance (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 189

(H) Economic Efficiency and Experience in Construction

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Excel Cleaning Services [1954] S.C.R 169
London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bolands Ltd [1924] A.C. 836 (H.L.), 848
Palliser Regional (School) Division v. Aviva Scottish & York Insurance Co. Ltd 2004 ABQB 781
Andreas Pizza Mill Ltd v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. [1997] B.C.J. No. 1101; (1997) 92
C.C.A.C 55
Leyland Shipping Co. Ltd v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918-19] ALLER 443;
[1918] A.C. 350 (H.L.)-Proximate cause as proximate in efficiency.
Yorkshire Insurance v Campbell [1917] A.C. 218, 225

(I) Latent Ambiguity

Hordern v. Commercial Union (1887) 56 L.P. P.C. 78

Kaufmann v British Surety Insurance (1959) 45 T.L.R. 399

(J) The Proximate Cause Puzzle

Page | 5
 2021/2022

Leyland Shipping Co. Ltd v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918-19] ALLER 443;
[1918] A.C. 350 (H.L.)
Stanley v. The Western Insurance Co. (1868) L.R. 3 Exch. 71
Re Hooley Hill Rubber & Chemical Co. Ltd v. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd [1920] 1 K.B. 257Curtis’s
and Harvey (Canada) Ltd v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd [1921] 1 A.C. 3030
Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd v. The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd [1974] QB
57 (C.A); [1973] 3 ALLER 825; [1973] 3 WLR 483; [1973] 2 Lloyds’s Rep 237
Triple Five Corp v. Simcoe & Fire Group [1997] A.J. No. 248 (C.A.)

Utmost good faith and non-Disclosure

Articles of interest may be:

Brooke, Materiality in Insurance Contracts (1985) L.M.C.Q 437
Hasson (1969), the Doctrine of Uberrima Fides in Insurance Law; A Critical Evaluation (1969) 32
M.L.R.615
Howard N. Bennett (1998), statements of fact and statements of belief in Insurance Contract Law and
General Law Modern Law Review 61(6), 886-898
Cases
1. Carter v. Boehm (supra)
2. Joel v Law Union (1908) 2 K.B 415
3. Re Bradley and Essex Accident (1912) 1K.B 415
4. Provincial v Morgan (1933) Ac 240
5. Banque financiere de la cite v Westgate Insurance co. ltd (1991) 2 A.C. 249
6. Pan Atlantic v Pine Top (1994) 3 All ER 581
7. Merchants’ & Manufacturers’ insurance v Hunt (1941) 1 K.B. 295
8. CTI Inc v. Oceanus mutual underwriting Association (1984) 1 Lloyd’s rep. 467
9. Regina fur v Bossom (1958)2 Lloyd’s rep 425
10. Economides v. Commercial Union Assurance plc (1998) Q.B. 587; (1997) 3 All E.R. 636
11. Rozanes v. Bowen (1928) 32 Li.L.R.98
12. Roselodge Ltd v. Castle (1966) 2 Q.B.113
13. Dawsons v. Bonnin (1922) 2 A.C. 413
14. Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd v John Sematengo (1965) E.A. 233
15. Shamji Pandya v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance co. (1957) E.A.21
16. National Insurance Corporation v Kakugu, Civil Appeal 040/2015 [2016] UGHCCD 136
17. Scorpion Holdings v Lion Assurance Co. Ltd HCCS 221/2013 UGCOMMC 50
18. Regent Insurance Co. Ltd v King’s Property Development Ltd [ZASC7] SC of Appeal of South
Africa Case No. 50014
19. C.I.C General Insurance Co. Ltd v Joseph Mwangi, Kenya HCCA 64/ 2015
20. Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 3 All ER 581
21. Kenindia Assurance Company Ltd v Kamithi and another [2004] 2 EA 115
22. The Motor Union Insurance Co Ltd v AK Ddamba [1963] 1 EA 271 (HCU)
23. Banque Financière de la Cité SA v Westgate Insurance Co Ltd [1989] 2 All ER 952
24. Jubilee insurance co ltd v. John Sematengo [1965] EA 233
25. Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd and others and related Actions [1987]
2 All ER 923

Misrepresentation
1. Graham v. Western Australian Insurance (1931) 40 LLLR.64
2. Dawsons v. Bonnin (1922) 2 A.C. 413

Page | 6
 2021/2022

3. Barber v. Fletcher (17791) 1Dough K.B. 305

4. Thomson v. Weems (1884) 9 App. Cas. 671
5.**Pan Atlantic v Pine Top (supra)
6. Toomey v Eagle star (No. 2) (1995)2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88
7. Golding v Royal London Anxiliary insurance (19150 30 TIR 350
8. Canning v. Farquhar (supra)
9. Benham v. United Guarantee (1852) 7 Ex. 744
10. Davies v. National Fire (1891) A.C. 485
11. National Insurance Corporation v Kakugu, Civil Appeal 040/2015 [2016] UGHCCD 136
12. Synergy Health (UK) Ltd v CGU Insurance PLC & Ors [2010] EWHC 2583
13. Insurance Co. of East Africa v Kitagenda HCCS 301/2012 [2016] UGCOMMC

The effect of Fraud

1. Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337
2. Kettlewell v. Refuge (1908) 1 K.B. 545
3. Davies v. National Fire and Marine (1891) A.C.485
4. Joel v. Law Union (1908) 2 K.B.863
5. Scorpion Holdings v Lion Assurance Co. Ltd HCCS 221/2013 UGCOMMC 50
6. Longway Suitcase Manufacturing Co. v UAP Insurance (U) Ltd [2014] UGCOMMC 14
7. Kabege v NIKO Insurance (U) Ltd HCCS 319/2012 [2014] UGCOMMC 65

Insurable interest
S.133 Insurance Act
1. Dalby v. India and London life Assurance co. (1854) 15 C.R 365
2. Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance co. ltd (1904) 1 K.B. 558
3. Lucena v. Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos &pul. 269
4. Mark Rowlands v. Berni Inns (1985) 3 All ER 473
5. Prudential Staff Union v. Hall (1925) K.B. 685
6.**Macaura v Northern Assurance (1925) A.C. 619 rejected in some commonwealth jurisdictions
7. The Moonacre (1992) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 501
8. Petrofina v. Magnaload (1984) Q.B.127
9. Cook v Field (1850) 15 Q.B 460
10. United Bus Service ltd v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd (1969) E.A. 242
11. C.I.C General Insurance Co. Ltd v Joseph Mwangi, Kenya HCCA 64/ 2015
12. Mawadri v Britt Syndicates & Anor HCCS 376/2009
13. Tom Bright Amooti v Swift Freight International Ltd HCCS No. 41/2012 UGCOMMC 217
14. Medical Defense Union v. Department of Trade [1979] 2 ALL ER 421
15. Lonsdale & Thompson Ltd v Black Arrow Group plc and another [1993] 3 All ER 648
16. Livio Carli and others v Salem and Mohamed Bashanfer and others [1959] 1 EA 701 (SCA)
17. Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1937] 2 All ER 243

The premium
S.63, 64 Insurance Act
1. Lewis v Norwich Union Fire Insurance co. (1916) A.C.509
2. Wolenberg v. Royal Co-operative Society (1915) 83 L.J.K.B. 1316
3. Kumar v. Life Insurance Co. of India (1974) LT 896
4. Kettlewell v. Refuge Assurance co. (1908) 97 LT 896
5. Tejani v. Life Insurance corp. of India (1968) E.A. 242
6. Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance (1904) 90 LT 245
7. Uganda v Ssebuwufu Samwiri Kiseka & 2 Ors, Criminal Case 18/2010 [2011] UGHC 57
8. Longway Suitcase Manufacturing Co. v UAP Insurance (U) Ltd [2014] UGCOMMC 146

Page | 7
 2021/2022

The risk
1. Boehm v Combe (1813) 2 M. & S. 172
2. Cornish v Accident insurance (1889) 23 Q. B. d. 453
3. Coven v. H.K. Chinese
4. Beresford v Royal (1983) AC 586
5. British Marine v Gaunt (1921) 2 A. C 41
6. Austin v Drewe (1815) 4 Camp. 30
7. Harris v Poland (1941) 1 K.B. 462
8. Soya v White (19830 Lloyd’s rep. 122
9. Noten v Harding (1990) 2Lioyd’s Rep. 527
10. Schloss Bross v. Stevens (1906) 2 K.B. 665
11. Kanti Co. Ltd v. British Traders Insurance Co. ltd (1965) E.A.108
12. Gray v Barr (1971)2 Q B 554
13. Charlton v Fisher (2001) Lloyds Rep 12 387 par. 33
14. Re Wright & Pole (1834) 1 Ad & EI 621
15. Maurice v Goldborough Mort (1939) AC 452
16. Moore v. Evans (1918) AC 185
17. Mitsui v. Mereford (1915) 2 K.B 27
18. Ranicarv. Frigmobile Pay ltd (1983) - change in physical state of the goods although temporary can
constitute damage.
19. Global Process Systems Inc v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd (The Cendor MOPU) [2011] UKSC
20. Musoke v Standard Chartered Bank HCCS 258/2009 [2013] UGCOMMC 123
21. Dian GF International Ltd v Damco Logistics Ltd HCCS 161/2010 [2012] UGCOMMC 10
22. Jonathan Kirasha v United Assurance Co. Ltd HCCS 0861/2004 [2006] UGCOMMC 18
23. Beauchamp v National Mutual Indemnity Insurance Co Ltd [1937] 3 All ER 19
24. Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd v The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd [1973] 3 All
ER 825
25. Kelly v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1989] 2 All ER 888
26. Kanti & Co Ltd v. British Traders’ Insurance Co Ltd [1965] 1 EA 108 (CAN)
27. Kasereka v Gateway Insurance Co Ltd [2003] 2 EA 502 (CCK)
28. Marcel Beller Ltd v Hayden [1978] 3 All ER 111
29. Philadelphia National Bank v Price [1938] 2 All ER 199
30. Nasser Mohamed Omer v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1966] 1 EA 79 (CAN)
31. Shah (Nemch and Premchand) V. South British Insurance Company Limited EA 679 (CA)
32. Gray v Barr (Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, third party) [1971] 2 All ER 949, CA

Indemnity
1. Holmes v Payne (1930) 2 K.B. 301
2. Rice v Baxendale (1861) 7 H&N96
3. Aubrey Film Productions v Graham (1960)2 Lloyd’s Rep 101
4. Dominion Mosaics co v Trafalgar Trucking co (1990) 2 all E.R 246
5. Sprung v Royal Insurance
6. Napier and Ettrick v Kershaw (1993) 1 all 385
7. Moore v Evans
8. Orakpo v Manson Investments (1978) A.C 95
9. James Nelson v Nelson line (1906) 2 K.B. 217
10. Yorkshire Insurance co. v Nisbett Shipping co. (1962) 2 Q.B. 330. (1961) 2 all E.R. 487
11. Joseph Kayanja v. The New India Assurance co. ltd E.A.C.A. civ. Appeal no. 59/1967
12. Shah v Hercules Insurance (supra)
13. Musoke v Standard Chartered Bank HCCS 258/2009 [2013] UGCOMMC 123

Page | 8
 2021/2022

14. Scorpion Holdings v Lion Assurance Co. Ltd HCCS 221/2013 UGCOMMC 50
15. Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v Igeme Nabeta HCCS No.228/2012 [2015] UGCOMMC 102

Recent Developments in Insurance Law in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic as compared to
other disasters
Jeffrey W. Stempel (2002); The Insurance Aftermath of September 11: Myriad Claims, Multiple Lines,
Arguments over Occurrence Counting, War Risk Exclusions, The Future of Terrorism Coverage, And
New Issues Of Government Role, Tort & Insurance Law Journal , Spring 2002, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Spring
2002), Pp. 817-882

1. The Financial Conduct Authority and Others v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others [2021]
UKSC 1 (15th January 2021)
2. Café Chameleon CC v Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd (5736/2020)  [2020] ZAWCHC 65 (26
June 2020).
3. Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited (6499/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 160;
[2021] 1 All SA 195 (WCC) (17 November 2020)
4. SR Int'l Business Ins. v. World Trade Center Pro No. 01 Civ. 9291 (HB) United States District
Court, S.D. New York

Seminars, Presentations and Moots

We shall host seminars and presentations on topical issues in the industry. Three discussions will be
considered first:

(a) Insurance for large scale infrastructure projects (such as Karuma Dam, Isimba, Flyovers and
airports).
(b) Insurance and the oil industry: assessing the opportunities, risks, and threats from a legal
perspective. We shall also analyze the legal issues that arose from the BP oil spill.
(c) Insurance and emerging technologies: The growing trend of InsureTech and what lessons and
challenges it presents to industry and regulators.

These seminars are intended to enable the students appreciate the role that they can play in the various
industries in which these topics arise and how they can strategize to get involved upon completion of their
Degree.

We will also host a moot based on an actual ongoing dispute in the Courts. We will invite counsel in that
case and other practicing advocates to facilitate the students in role playing. This is intended to give
students a taste of the practical dimensions of Insurance law and practice.

Page | 9