代寫論文:保險合同糾紛案例

代寫論文:保險合同糾紛案例

珠光紙業有限公司執行控罪個案解決方案

對於無正當理由的傷害索賠拒絕,建議Bob先以Bling Bling確認保險單,然後再與保險公司就擔保利益達成協議。如果公司沒有對拒絕索賠作出任何適當的解釋,從而使保險人遭受重大傷害,則保險人可能應就損失聯繫個別律師。爲了解決這些問題,這將是必要的。需要首先承認的基本術語,接觸違約和不適當的信仰。在這裏,保險組織似乎違背了以合理公平的方式對待被適當保險的Bob的義務,從而從事了不適當的信仰(Harris et al., 2016)。這裏可以舉出一個例子,說明在任何情況下,保險組織顯然未能對受傷索賠進行調查,或因個別爲承保的訴訟進行辯護而被錯誤地拒絕。這種情況也包括公司錯誤地未能支付基於有效性的索賠的情況,可能存在明顯的惡意行爲。在這種情況下,當事人鮑勃有可能考慮對損害進行懲罰性賠償。

同時,Bob通過簽訂擔保權益保險合同的保險單,反過來又與保險公司訂立保險公司合同。拒絕索賠是一種違約行爲。保險公司違反了本合同,沒有履行他們所簽訂的任何合同,包括支付根據可見保險單提出的有效索賠。在本案例中,錯誤拒絕索賠是一種明顯的違約行爲,因爲公司沒有提供任何合理性質的理由。需要確保的是,所制定的保險合同具有合理的索賠(Harris et al., 2016)。以保險爲主要業務的組織將不通過任何條款違反合同。這可能是對同一合同的收縮,涉及對在特定政策範圍內有效提出的索賠的支付。在這種情況下,政策措辭會被仔細審查。如果被保險人被描述爲保險機構違反合同,被保險人將承擔損害賠償責任,並可能因拒絕賠償而獲得賠償。這是鮑勃的第一次索賠。根據《公司法》(2001)及其相關法律,很明顯,鮑勃訂立了一項合同,當合同不再存在時,保險公司仍然有權確保沒有錯誤拒絕。在這種情況下,否認似乎是突然的,並且假定Bob的索賠存在於保單中。

此外,保險合同是通過最大誠信原則管理的。在這一背景下,澳大利亞保險法也可以用來規範行業和其合同在國內(Cassidy, 2010)。《1984年保險合同法》和《1973年保險法》作爲法律主體所提及的主要法律適用於此。根據該原則,如果保險索賠有明確的界定理由,並適當地說明了所需的細節,如果保險公司作出錯誤拒絕索賠,則錯誤拒絕索賠進一步成立。因此,本文提出了Bob可以收取擔保物權請求權的概念。

代寫論文:保險合同糾紛案例

Case Solution on enforcing charge against Bling Bling Pty Ltd

With regard to unwarranted injury claims denials, it is advised to first acknowledge the insurance policy with Bling Bling by Bob and then the insurance company for security interest should be reached. If the company has not provided any appropriate explanation of denying the claim and in turn significant injury is suffered by insurer then it might be appropriate for insurer to contact an individual attorney for the loss. This will be needed in order to take care of these issues. The need is to first acknowledge the basic terminologies, contact breaching and inappropriate faith. It seems here that insurance organization has engaged in inappropriate faith by breaching its duty of treating the Bob who was properly insured in a reasonably fair way (Harris et al., 2016). An example can be quoted here of situations wherever it is evident that the insurance organization has failed investigation of a claim of injury or refused wrongfully for defending a covered lawsuit individually. Such situations are also inclusive of the situations where companies failed wrongfully to pay out validity based claims, there might be an evident act of bad faith. In such circumstance, it will be possible for the party facing injury that is Bob to consider recovering the damages punitively.

Also, Bob through signing the policy of security interest insurance contract in turn binds with the insurance company to enter into an insurance company contract. Wrong claim denial is a contract breach. The company for insurance breached this contract by not performing anything they had contracted for doing, inclusive of paying for validity claims made under visible policies. Wrongful claim denial is a contract breach as evident in this case because no justifications of reasonable nature have been provided by the company. What needs to be ensured is the fact that the insurance contract formulated has the claims justified (Harris et al., 2016). An organization with insurance to be paid as their key service would breach the contract through no provision. This might be for contraction over the same involving payment for claims that are validly made within a specific policy. In such cases, the policy words are examined closely. If it has been depicted that insurance organization breach’s the contract, the insured is made to compensate for the claim of injury and might get awarded over the denial based damages caused. The claim here is a first party claim by Bob. According to the Corporations Act (2001) and its associated laws, it is evident that Bob entered into a contract and when the contract is no more, it is still the right of the insurance company to ensure that there is no wrongful denial. In this case, the denial seems abrupt and it is assumed that Bob had his claims existing within the policy.

Furthermore, insurance contracts are governed through the utmost good faith doctrine. Australian insurance law in this context can also be used which indulges to regulate the industry and its contracts within the nation (Cassidy, 2010). The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and Insurance Act 1973 are applicable here as key acts for which the law body on the whole refers to. As per the doctrine, if insurance claims have been made with clear defining grounds and state the required details appropriately, the wrongful denial claim further stands if wrongful denial is given by the insurance company. Therefore, this paper is of the notion that Bob can charge claim for the security interest.