Related provisions for PERG 6.7.5
1 - 20 of 62 items.
An important part of the conclusion in PERG 6.7.5 G was that, although the provider assumed a risk at the outset of the contract, looking at the contract as a whole and interpreting the common law in the context of the FSA's objectives (see PERG 6.5.2 G and PERG 6.5.3 G) there was no relevant assumption of risk.(1) The presence or absence of an assumption of risk is an important part of the statutory rationale for the prudential regulation of insurance.(2) In Medical Defence Union
The FSA is unlikely to classify a contract containing a simple manufacturer's or retailer's warranty as a contract of insurance, if the FSA is satisfied that the warranty does no more that crystallise or recognise obligations that are of the same nature as a seller's or supplier's usual obligations as regards the quality of the goods or services.
Other things being equal, the FSA is likely to classify a contract of sale containing a warranty that has one or more of the features in PERG 6.7.11 G as a contract of insurance. The features in PERG 6.7.11 G (1) and (2) typically distinguish a 'third party' warranty and an 'extended warranty' from a 'simple' manufacturer's or retailer's warranty.
If a warranty is provided by a third party, the FSA will usually treat this as conclusive of the fact that there are different transactions and an assumption or transfer of risk. This conclusion would not usually depend on whether the provider is (or is not) a part of the same group of companies as the manufacturer or retailer. But it will be the third party (who assumes the risk) that is potentially effecting a contract of insurance.
A manufacturer or retailer may undertake a warranty obligation to his customer in a separate contract with the customer, distinct from the contract of sale or supply of goods or services. The FSA will examine the separate contract to see if it is a contract of insurance. But the mere existence of a separate warranty contract is unlikely to be conclusive by itself.
A manufacturer or retailer may undertake an obligation to ensure that the customer becomes a party to a separate contract of insurance in respect of the goods sold. This would include, for example, a contract for the sale of a freezer, with a simple warranty in relation to the quality of the freezer, but also providing insurance (underwritten by an insurer and in respect of which the customer is the policyholder) covering loss of frozen food if the freezer fails. The FSA is unlikely
The FSA distinguishes the contract in PERG 6.7.15 G from a contract under which the manufacturer or retailer assumes the obligation to provide the customer with an indemnity against loss or damage if the freezer fails, but takes out insurance to cover the cost of having to provide the indemnity to the customer. The obligation to indemnify is of a different nature from the seller's or supplier's usual obligations as regards the quality of goods or services and is an insurance obligation.
The following are examples of typical warranty schemes operated by motor dealers. Provided that, in each case, the FSA is satisfied that the obligations assumed by the dealer are not significantly more extensive in content, scope or duration that a dealer's usual obligations as to the quality of motor vehicles of that kind, the FSA would not usually classify the contracts embodying these transactions as contracts of insurance.(1) The dealer gives a verbal undertaking to the purchaser
Some providers argued that these schemes amount to nothing more than a 'manufacturer's warranty' of their own work, within the scope of PERG 6.7.7 G (Example 3: manufacturers' and retailers' warranties). However, HM Revenue and Customs is expected to make a significant number of random checks of self-assessment forms, irrespective of the quality of the work done by the provider. These random checks are also covered by the schemes. The FSA concluded, therefore, that these schemes
In the FSA's opinion, however, such information is likely to take on the nature of advice if the circumstances in which it is provided give it the force of a recommendation. Examples of situations where information provided by a person (P) might take the form of advice are given below.(1) P may provide information on a selected, rather than balanced and neutral, basis that would tend to influence the decision of a person. This may arise where P offers to provide information about
The potential for variation in the form, content and manner of pre-purchase questioning is considerable, but there are two broad types. The first type involves providing questions and answers which are confined to factual matters (for example, the amount of the cover). In the FSA's view, this does not itself amount to advising on contracts of insurance, if it involves the provision of information rather than advice. There are various possible scenarios, including the following:(1)
In the case of PERG 5.8.18G (2) and similar scenarios, the FSA considers that it is necessary to look at the process and outcome of pre-purchase questioning as a whole. It may be that the element of advice incorporated in the questioning can properly be viewed as generic advice if it were considered in isolation. But although the actual advice may be generic, the process has ended in identifying one or more particular contracts of insurance. The combination of the generic advice
The activity in article 25(1) is carried on only if the arrangements bring about, or would bring about, the transaction to which the arrangement relates. This is because of the exclusion in article 26 of the Regulated Activities Order (Arrangements not causing a deal). Article 26 excludes from article 25(1) arrangements which do not bring about or would not bring about the transaction to which the arrangements relate. In the FSA's view, a person would bring about a contract of
The restriction in the scope of article 28 raises an issue where there is a trust with co-trustees, where each trustee will be a policyholder with equal rights and obligations. If the activities of one of the trustees include arranging in respect of contracts of insurance, that trustee could be viewed as arranging on behalf of his co-trustees who will also be policyholders. Similar issues also arise in respect of trustees assisting in the administration and performance of a contract
The effect of PERG 5.6.17G (4) is that some persons who, in making introductions, are making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments under article 25(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, cannot use the introducing exclusion. This is if, in general terms, the arrangements for making introductions relate to contracts of insurance (PERG 5.6.19 G has further guidance on when arrangements for introductions may be regarded as relating to contracts of insurance). However,
Where a person is making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments by way of making introductions, and he is not completely indifferent to whether or not transactions may result, it may still be the case that the exclusion in article 33 will apply. In the FSA's view, this is where:(1) the introduction is for independent advice on investments generally; and(2) the introducer is indifferent as to whether or not a contract of insurance may ultimately be bought (or
(1) The removal of the exclusion for groups and joint enterprises in article 69 of the Regulated Activities Order (Groups and joint enterprises) may have implications for a company providing services for:(a) other members of its group; or(b) other participants in a joint enterprise of which it is a participant.(2) Such companies might typically provide risk or treasury management or administration services which may include regulated activities relating to a contract of insurance.
Article 67 may also apply to activities relating to assignments of insurance policies, as, in the FSA's view, article 2.3 of the IMD applies essentially to the creation of new contracts of insurance and not the assignment of rights under existing policies. As such, where a solicitor or licensed conveyancer arranges an assignment of a contract of insurance, the exclusion in article 67 remains of potential application. For similar reasons, trustees advising on or arranging assignments
Article 72B (see also PERG 5.3.7 G (Connected contracts of insurance)) may be of relevance to persons who supply non-motor goods or provide services related to travel in the course of carrying on a profession or business which does not otherwise consist of carrying on regulated activities. In the FSA's view, the fact that a person may carry on regulated activities in the course of the carrying on of a profession or business does not, of itself, mean that the profession or business
Article 72B of the Regulated Activities Order (Activities carried on by a provider of relevant goods or services) excludes from FSA regulation certain regulated activities carried on by providers of non-motor goods and services related to travel in relation to contracts of insurance that satisfy a number of conditions. Details about the scope of this exclusion can be found at PERG 5.11.13 G to PERG 5.11.15 G (Activities carried on by a provider of relevant goods or services)
The 'assumption of risk' by the provider is an important descriptive feature of all contracts of insurance. The 'assumption of risk' has the meaning in (1) and (3), derived from the case law in (2) and (4) below. The application of the 'assumption of risk' concept is illustrated in PERG 6.7.2 G (Example 2: disaster recovery business).(1) Case law establishes that the provider's obligation under a contract of insurance is an enforceable obligation to respond (usually, by providing
Under most commercial contracts with a customer, a provider will assume more than one obligation. Some of these may be insurance obligations, others may not. The FSA will apply the principles in PERG 6.5.4 G, in the way described in (1) to (3) to determine whether the contract is a contract of insurance.(1) If a provider undertakes an identifiable and distinct obligation that is, in substance an insurance obligation as described in PERG 6.5.4 G, then, other things being equal,
GEN 6.1.5 R and GEN 6.1.6 R do not prevent a firm or member from entering into, arranging, claiming on or making any payment under a contract of insurance which indemnifies any person against all or part of the costs of defending FSA enforcement action or any costs they may be ordered to pay to the FSA.
The FSA will apply the following principles of construction to determine whether a contract is a contract of insurance.(1) In applying the description in PERG 6.3.4 G, more weight attaches to the substance of the contract, than to the form of the contract. The form of the contract is relevant (see PERG 6.6.8 G (3) and (4)) but not decisive of whether a contract is a contract of insurance: Fuji Finance Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. Ltd [1997] Ch. 173 (C.A.).(2) In particular,
The Regulated Activities Order, which sets out the activities for which authorisation is required, does not attempt an exhaustive definition of a 'contract of insurance'. Instead, it makes some specific extensions and limitations to the general common law meaning of the concept. For example, it expressly extends the concept to fidelity bonds and similar contracts of guarantee, which are not contracts of insurance at common law, and it excludes certain funeral plan contracts, which
If a firm decides to cease to effect new contracts of insurance, it must, within 28 days of that decision, submit a run-off plan to the FSA including: (1) a scheme of operations; and (2) an explanation of how, or to what extent, all liabilities to policyholders (including, where relevant, liabilities which arise from the regulatory duty to treat customers fairly in setting discretionary benefits) will be met in full as they fall due.
Under Principle 11, the FSA normally expects to be notified by a firm when it decides to cease effecting new contracts of insurance in respect of one or more classes of contract of insurance (see SUP 15.3.8 G). At the same time, the FSA would normally expect the firm to discuss with it the need for the firm to apply to vary its permission (see SUP 6.2.6 G and SUP 6.2.7 G) and, if appropriate, to submit a scheme of operations in accordance with SUP App 2.8.1 R.