Arguments Against Double Insurance

588 Words 3 Pages
Double insurance, some speak of it as dual insurance. It has often been considered as double dipping and unjust enrichment of assured because sometimes it became source for making profit thatisincurring money above loss which is bad in law. Now the question comes what actually is double insurance? This concept has been dealt by The Marine Insurance Act, 1963 under section 34, 75, 80, 84. According to section 34 of said act “Where two or more policies are effected by or on behalf of the assured on the same adventure and interest or any part thereof, and the sums insured exceed the indemnity allowed by this Act, the assured is said to be over-insured by double insurance”. Further Explainingit can be said that when any particular subject is insured by two different insurance companies it is said to be covered under double insurance. It is generally adopted when there is any doubt on the financial position of insurer.

It is often argued by insured that they have right to have money from both the
…show more content…
If these things are not checked and kept in control then it will run insurance companies out of business, which will consequence in raising the premium rates by insurance company.

Going to critics of double insurance – such liberty to take out as many policies as one want against same interest rather than the subject require seems worthless as it does not in any way increase the amount more than that covered under the policies . Beside this it lead to conflict between assured and insurer when time of claim comes which also causes delay in payment. so it cannot be said that double insurance is about making profit by having dual insurance of same subject because there are law laid to guide on matter if one try to make benefit out of it consequence will always be

Related Documents