The insurer had noted that an oven on the insured’s premises was a danger. The insured said that the over had been disconnected and was no longer in use. This was not in fact the case. A year later the insurer surveyed the premises. It noted the oven, but did not realise that it was the same oven. The insurer rejected a claim under the policy because of the insured’s failure to inform the insurer of a change which increased the risk.
Held: The claim failed. There was no clear and unequivocal representation made by the insurer that they would not insist on their right to treat the cover as discharged nor such reliance as to make it inequitable for the insurers to go back on it. There was nothing which was more than equivocal when seen in the context of a continuing contractual relationship (one which placed duties on both parties).
Citations:
[2006] Lloyds Rep IR 113
Cited by:
Cited – Wheatley, Smith As Executors of Henry Thomas Cadbury-Brown v King LRA 30-Nov-2011
LRA Estoppel – Exercise of options – whether defect waived – ‘The Kanchenjunga’ [1990] Lloyds Law Reports 391 – Peyman v Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.465878
