Uberrimae Fidei:
Now there's a legal phrase whose time has come -- and gone. Apparently it's common in admiralty law, and it means "of the utmost good faith," as in "Marine insurance is a contract 'uberrimae fidei,' requiring the utmost good faith by both parties to the contract." I've been in law teaching for nearly 14 years, and had never heard of it until today. Use it at your own peril, unless you're using it in a field where it's firmly established.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Uberrimae Fidei, Back in the News:
- Uberrimae Fidei:
If you have to say so, the judge will probably doubt it.
@Just Saying: The difference is, for example, caveat emptor. (Another glorious latin phrase.) The law defines what kinds of information the seller of something (say, a house that is haunted), has to give to the buyer, so as to act in good faith. Similar for most other contractual relations. (I'm not sure about the Common Law on this one, but my country's Civil Code states in several places that parties to a contract have to act in good faith towards one another.)
In the context of insurance contracts, on the other hand, the party buying insurance is under a legal obligation to act uberrimae fidei, with the utmost good faith. The customer has to answer each of the insurance company's questions truthfully, and has to volunteer material information if the insurer does not ask for it.
And as for whether the phrase is still common, "uberrimae fidei" gets 36 hits on bailii. The first hit is even an ECHR precedent, concerning discrimination against transgendered individuals. (The insurance angle is that transgendered individuals may, on occasion, have to identify their former gender, for example when they take out life assurance.)
Less, reliable, but more jurisdictions: Worldlii gives 248 hits.
I suppose the phrase might be outdated in the US, but certainly not in the UK. It's in the textbooks and everything...
So you should write "Ueberleutnant".
Sorry, but first lieutenant is Oberleutnant in German (not to be confounded with Oberstleutnant [lieutenant colonel], not Überleutnant. Ober- usually has only the meaning of "higher" (rank, or location), whereas Über- can also simply mean "above" (or "more/over"), but tends to have a connotation of supremacy (as in the Übermensch of Nietzsche) or exaggeration (übermässig, übertrieben) ...
So it is really just good faith and disclosure by the insured.
@Happyshooter: Yes. But since the degree to which the insured has to volunteer information (and generally: cooperate) is an order of magnitude greater than in any other contractual relation, the term is "the utmost good faith", or uberrimae fidei.
Wikipedia writes:
Having the misfortune of practicing insurance law in the states once upon a time, I can say the term "good faith" has eclipsed uberrimae fidei almost completely.
Somebody posted above that the term is current in English insurance law: uberrimae fidei *is* frequently used in reinsurance law -- probably because of the strong Commonwealth presence that flavors reinsurance practice (which rationale, come to think of it, would apply to maritime law as well).
The difference is that regular old good faith only goes to ten, but utmost good faith goes to eleven.
From an admiralty perspective it is an interesting decision for several reasons, e.g., the interplay between federal and state law, particularly in the area of marine insurance. See Wilburn Boat v Fireman's Fund, 348 US 310 (1955).
Which also kind of describes what the purchaser of the insurance must do with respect to the material facts within his knowledge as to the risk being insured. His self-interest in not revealing such must yield to the Insurer's (and society's) interests in pricing risk correctly.
It does carry that element of self-denial or putting of self-interest in second place to the interests of others. In both cases it implies something beyond simple good faith , requiring more revelation or action against self-interest than is required in other contexts eg. contracts of P&S of goods where all representations are implicitly made in good faith (but a relation of uberrimae fides requires in addition to this that all material knowledge known is in fact represented - there can be no "caveat emptor" in such a relationship).
The phrase is useful and adds a layer of obligation requiring active self-abnegation to the usual "good faith". In insurance not just the facts useful to one party but ALL the facts especially those contrary to the party's interests. In Trusts it means that where Trustee and Beneficiary's interests compete or conflict the Trustee must do what is best for the Beneficiary, not herself.
Not knowing much about insurance law - does this also lay obligations as to the Insurer? Or is it one-way like in Trust (no obligations added to the Beneficiary, only the Trustee)? Or does reciprocity manifest in the strict interpretation of the words of the contract against the insurer's interests in case of (the slightest?) ambiguity at trial?