Life Assurance Act 1774

The Act has only four sections:

• Section 1 seeks to deal with these abuses by stipulating that henceforth no assurance is to be made on the life of any person or persons, or on any other event, where the person for whose use the policy was made had "no interest" in the matter, or if it were clearly done for the intent of "gaming or wagering", and that any assurance made contrary to this requirement was deemed null and void.
• To aid in preventing this, section 2 required that any such policy include the names of the persons who stood to benefit by it.
• Section 3 stipulated that, in all cases where the insured party had a legitimate interest in the life or event, they did not recover more than the value of their interest from the policy, guarding against the related abuse of deliberate overinsuring.
• For the avoidance of doubt, section 4 stated that the Act did not extend to legitimate insurances of ships, goods or merchandise. Gaming or wagering in relation to British ships and merchandise was already prohibited by the Marine Insurance Act 1745.

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]

• Text of the Life Assurance Act 1774 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.