Lord Mansfield CJ said: ‘The underwriter, here, knowing the governor to be acquainted with the state of the place; knowing that he apprehended danger, and must have some ground for his apprehension; being told nothing of either; signed this policy, without asking a question. If the objection ‘that he was not told’ is sufficient to vacate it, he took the premium knowing the policy to be void; in order to gain, if the alternative turned out one way; and to make no satisfaction, if it turned out the other: he drew the governor into a false confidence . . If he thought that omission an objection at the time, he ought not to have signed the policy with a secret reserve in his own mind to make it void; if he dispensed with the information, and did not think this silence an objection then; he cannot take it up now, after the event.’ and
‘There are many matters as to which the insured may be innocently silent. He need not mention what the underwriter knows: what way soever he came to the knowledge. The insured need not mention what the underwriter ought to know: what he takes upon himself the knowledge of: or what he waives being informed of…and either party may be innocently silent as to grounds open to both to exercise their judgment upon.’
There may be circumstances in which an insurer, by asserting a right to avoid for non-disclosure, would himself be guilty of want of good faith.
Judges:
Lord Mansfield CJ
Citations:
[1766] 3 Burr 1905, [1766] EngR 13, (1766) 3 Burr 1905, (1766) 97 ER 1162 (C)
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Carter v Boehm 1746
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Glencore International Ag and Another v Portman and others CA 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had failed to disclose previous demurrage losses, and now appealed a dismissal of their claim under the policy for non-disclosure such as to be a breach of their duty of utmost good faith.
Held: the demurrage losses incurred by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182300
