Section 94 and 95 of the RTA 1987 prohibits an insurer from relying on certain terms in an insurance policy for the purposes of excluding liability. On the other hand a term or condition which does not come within the purview of section 94 and 95 may be legitimately relied upon by the insurer for the purposes of excluding liability under the policy when a claim is brought by a third party. The question now is whether Section 91(1)(b) of the RTA 1987 can be legitimately relied upon by the Appellant to exclude liability. The answer to this question lies in section 95(k) of the RTA 1987 itself.
The need for interpreting a contract can arise in two situations. Firstly, if the Judge or Arbitrator is of that opinion that “a gap is needed to be filled” in order to interpret the Contract and secondly, if she/he believes that “an ambiguity is needed to be resolved” in order to find the correct intention of the contract. The Doctrine of Contra Proferentem is generally applied by the Judges in the later case where a contract appears ambiguous to them. With the passage of time, the Judges have started appreciating the significance