The starting point for the identification of a contract of insurance is the case of Prudential v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue  2 KB 658, from which the description set out in AUTH App 6.3.4 G is drawn. Any contracts that fall outside that description are unlikely to be contracts of insurance.
The FSA will apply the following principles of construction to determine whether a contract is a contract of insurance.
In applying the description in AUTH App 6.3.4 G, more weight attaches to the substance of the contract, than to the form of the contract. The form of the contract is relevant (see AUTH App 6.6.8 G (3) and (4)) but not decisive of whether a contract is a contract of insurance: Fuji Finance Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. Ltd  Ch. 173 (C.A.).
In particular, the substance of the provider's obligation determines the substance of the contract: In re Sentinel Securities  1 WLR 316. Accordingly, the FSA is unlikely to treat the provider's or the customer's intention or purpose in entering into a contract as relevant to its classification.
The contract must be characterised as a whole and not according to its 'dominant purpose' or the relative weight of its 'insurance content': Fuji Finance Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. Ltd  Ch. 173 (C.A.).
Since only contracts of marine insurance and certain contracts of insurance effected without consideration are required to be in writing, a contract of insurance may be oral or may be expressed in a number of documents.