Abstract/Summary

The line of authorities principally starting from Mark Rowlands have been predominantly interpreted as having established a principle that the contractual bargain of the underlying contract alone provides a single reference to address whether the insurance is also effected for a third party’s benefit, and even directly to a third party’s subrogation immunity. This paper argues that the extended application of the decision is questionable from two points of view. First, the underlying contract is only one of the factors that are discussed here for ascertaining if an insurance policy is also made for a third party’s benefit. Secondly, this paper submits that an indemnity insurance for a third party’s benefit is essentially a separate issue from a third party’s subrogation immunity. However, as the case law has developed, the Mark Rowlands principle has been radically misinterpreted and followed incorrectly in the way that the two issues seem to be conflated.