The defendant life insurance company sought to avoid payment alleging non-disclosure. At first they suggested first one then a second and then a third reason for non payment as each previous reason looked like failing. They relied now on non-disclosure of excessive drinking. The policy had lapsed and been re-instated.
Held: The non-disclosure of the drinking with the treatment recommended was material. The court had to look whether the inducement was in fact relied upon by the insurer. The evidence suggested here that the company had done so, and the company was entitled to avoid the policy.
[2005] EWHC 2678 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith v Chadwick HL 18-Feb-1884
Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation
A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a . .
Cited – St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.235540