Legality of the object(subject matter of insurance)

[Mataracy]

For a contract of insurance to valid, the object to be insured must be legal and not against public policy.
Happily enough, it has been the attitude of the courts to declare void and against public policy " contracts with a tendency to lead to crime , immorality or other effects prejudicial to the public".
But this is not generally so with the contract of insurance. Here, it is necessary to distinguished between an insurance contract with a " tendency yo sin" and an insurance contract with a " tendency to commit crime" and the crime which encouraged taking out of the policy is proved.
In the format, there is a valid contract since the "tendency to sin" is irrelevant in law; it falls within the realm of morality. On the either hand , a contract of insurance which is tainted with illegality, such as crime, is void and unenforceable. Thus it is a void policy where an illegal act, such as smuggling, leads to the loss or destruction of the subject matter if insurance. Again where there is a contemplation if an illegality or indeed the illegality exists at the time if taking out a policy such as where a building used solely for something considered unlawful, or where a brothel is insured against fire, such a policy will no doubt be void and unenforceable.

 

[Mandy96]

Well I think reading this have thought a lot I didn’t know about this aspect previously before now. I must confess that this is a very helpful analysis you just wrote up there but most people would not want to totally agree to this explanation due to one or two irrelevant reasons