A driver caused an accident, and the claimant insurance company paid out. It now sought a contribution from the defendant, who had also insured the driver, but had denied liability. The driver was a named additional driver under the second policy, but the principal insured had failed to disclose an old speeding conviction.
Held: There had been non-disclosure, but if an accident had been correctly disclosed as no-fault rather than fault, the premium would not have changed. The right of an insurer to avoid a contract for non-disclosure is akin to the right of rescission. Once the decision is communicated, the avoidance has immediate effect. If this was done in good faith, a later revision of the basis of the proposal does not revive the contract, and nor did the continuing to collect pemiums and amendment of the insurance contract.
References: [2003] EWHC 109 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd HL 27-Jul-1994 (Times 27-Jul-94, Independent 04-Aug-94, Gazette 07-Oct-94, [1995] 1 AC 501, [1994] 3 All ER 581, [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 427, [1994] 3 WLR 677)
The plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff.
Held: ‘material circumstance’ which . . - Cited – Abraham Steamship v Westville HL 1923 ([1923] AC 773)
. . - Cited – Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001 (Times 23-Jan-01, , , [2001] 1 All ER 743, [2001] 2 WLR 170, [2001] UKHL 1, [2003] 1 AC 469)
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.178956
