Aitken v Standard Life Assurance Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_162 (03 December 2008)

Aitken v Standard Life Assurance Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_162 (03 December 2008)

No implied contractual or unilateral obligation arose from the defenders' conduct or the contract terms to inform policyholders promptly of material changes to policy values. The annual statements only promised yearly, policy-specific updates, and the Updates were not policy-specific nor regular. The contract was detailed and did not require such notification, and the implication of such a term was not necessary for business efficacy. The pursuer's averments did not support the existence of the alleged obligation or term.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_162
Parties
Pursuer: John Graham Aitken; Defender: Standard Life Assurance Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Opinion on Relevancy (debate)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Unilateral Obligation, Duty to Inform Policyholders, Business Efficacy, Market Practice in Insurance
Contract Law Insurance Law Implied Terms Unilateral Obligation Duty to Inform Policyholders Business Efficacy Market Practice in Insurance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Graham Aitken

Pursuer

Standard Life Assurance Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Opinion on Relevancy (debate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Standard Life was under an implied contractual or unilateral obligation to inform policyholders promptly of material changes to policy values or bonuses
  2. 2 Whether such an obligation could be implied from conduct or was necessary for business efficacy
  3. 3 Whether there was an implied term in the policy requiring prompt notification of material changes

Ratio Decidendi

No implied contractual or unilateral obligation arose from the defenders' conduct or the contract terms to inform policyholders promptly of material changes to policy values. The annual statements only promised yearly, policy-specific updates, and the Updates were not policy-specific nor regular. The contract was detailed and did not require such notification, and the implication of such a term was not necessary for business efficacy. The pursuer's averments did not support the existence of the alleged obligation or term.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Defenders' first plea in law sustained
  • Action dismissed