Section 867

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5133/2542 (1999) ★ Landmark

   An insurance contract comes into existence upon agreement of the parties; the written policy is evidence of the contract, not a condition of its formation.

   An insurance contract is formed upon mutual agreement: the written policy document is not the contract itself but evidence of it. Section 867(1) merely requires written evidence of the contract signed by the liable party for enforcement; it does not require the policy as a condition of formation.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4093/2540 (1997)

   A motor policy condition that the insured must not agree, offer or promise to pay compensation to anyone without the insurer's consent is breached only by an act of the insured. A fine imposed on the insured by the inquiry official for careless driving causing damage to another's property is the official's own act and is not an admission of liability by the insured to the other party. Where the insured has neither agreed, offered nor promised compensation, and has not accepted liability, the condition is not broken and the insurer cannot rely on the condition precedent to refuse indemnity. Note on placement: the decision turns on the policy's own conditions rather than on section 867, which governs the written evidence and required contents of an insurance policy.

   The policy provided by condition 1.5.1 that the insured must not agree, offer or promise to pay compensation to any person without the insurer's consent unless the insurer had not dealt with the claim, and by condition 1.10, a condition precedent, that the insurer might decline to indemnify unless the insured had complied with the contract and the policy conditions. The insurer refused indemnity on the ground that the insured had admitted liability. The Supreme Court found that the insured had not agreed, offered or promised compensation to the other party and had not accepted liability towards him. The fine imposed on the insured by the inquiry official for careless driving causing damage to another's property was the official's own act, not an admission by the insured. The insured had therefore not broken the condition, and the insurer could not rely on it to refuse the indemnity.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 204/2545 (2002)

   A policy is a document the insurer draws up after the insurance contract has already come into existence, and section 867 paragraph 2 requires the insurer to deliver a policy whose content conforms to that contract. Where the claimant does not dispute that the policy conditions match the contract, the insurer may rely on the policy liability-limiting conditions to refuse payment. Reporting the loss to the police only six months after the vehicle was taken was not reporting without delay, so the insurer was entitled to refuse the beneficiary claim.

   A finance company sued as beneficiary under a motor policy after the hirer vehicle was taken by a woman who had borrowed it before and this time did not return it. On the day it went the hirer only recorded a statement disclaiming responsibility for what she might do with it; he lodged a theft complaint six months later. The Supreme Court held that, the beneficiary not having disputed that the policy conditions matched the insurance contract, the insurer could rely on them. Condition 1.6 required the insured to report to the police without delay any criminal act giving rise to a claim, and condition 1.9 made compliance a condition precedent to payment. Since the hirer should have assumed the vehicle was lost once it was not returned within the short period for which it had previously been borrowed, the six-month delay breached condition 1.6 and could prejudice the insurer. The Court reversed both courts below and dismissed the claim against the insurer.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.