An extended warranty covering domestic appliances as chosen by the insured and is not related to a particular contract of sale as with a connected contract. The policy is renewable annually and is usually issued by an insurer and not a retailer.

Marine and transit insurance term used where a single movement of goods involves different insurers in different parts of the transit.

Captive insurance company formed to meet the common needs of a group of independent companies or professional practitioners.

US term describing a policy covering a range of perils as opposed to one covering a single peril or restricted range of perils. The UK equivalent is comprehensive.

Two separate events combine to trigger a payment by the insurer only when the second event occurs. The latter is frequently linked to a metric or index outside the control of the insured in order to avoid moral hazard but correlates closely with the policyholder’s financial interests. For example, a dual trigger policy for a private hospital’s medical malpractice risk pays: (a) if the actual malpractice claims exceed a certain amount only if (b) the hospital’s equity portfolio value falls below a specified level during the same period.

Policy that runs for a fixed number of years. At Lloyd’s any ‘non-cancellable’ policy running in excess of 18 months is called ‘multi-year’.

Contracts running for more than one year, not subject to annual renewal, that ‘bundle’ more than one class of business. Such policies produce a saving for the insured as losses over longer periods, (e.g. five years), are more predictable than losses over one year and the insurer reduces the contingency loading accordingly.

a company without shareholders which carries on business on a mutual basis, that is in such a way that the policy holders are entitled to the surplus arising from the business (contrast proprietary company).

One of two irreducible minimum requirements before a contract of employment exists (Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. Johnson Underwood Ltd (2001) – an agency worker case) The Courts ruled that there must be an obligation on the employer to provide work and on the employee to accept it. One of the leading cases concerned waiters who worked at various catering functions. They did not work continually but would be telephoned and offered a particular job. The Court found that the employer did not have to offer them the work nor did they have to accept it. This meant they were not employees due to lack of mutuality of obligation. The second irreducible requirement is covered by the control test. See EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP.