Misrepresentation and insurance - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 07:57, 5 January 2021

2021-01-05T07:57:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:57, 5 January 2021
Line 17:		Line 17:
	--[[User:Rex_Cowell_Solicitors\|Rex Cowell Solicitors]]		--[[User:Rex_Cowell_Solicitors\|Rex Cowell Solicitors]]

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Caveat emptor in property sales.		* Caveat emptor in property sales.

Designing Buildings at 07:56, 5 January 2021

2021-01-05T07:56:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:56, 5 January 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:
	* Specified perils.		* Specified perils.

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]] [[Category:~~Property_law~~]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:~~DCN_News~~]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_News]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Editor at 10:15, 29 June 2017

2017-06-29T10:15:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 29 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:Officebuilding.jpeg]]	+	[[File:Officebuilding.jpeg\|link=File:Officebuilding.jpeg]]

	When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning a catastrophic property fire showed why absolute frankness is required.		When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning a catastrophic property fire showed why absolute frankness is required.
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* Insurance.		* Insurance.
	* Legal indemnity insurance.		* Legal indemnity insurance.
		+	* Material non-disclosure.
	* Non-negligent liability insurance.		* Non-negligent liability insurance.
	* Property disrepair and landlord liabilities.		* Property disrepair and landlord liabilities.
	* Specified perils.		* Specified perils.

−	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:News]]	+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:News]] [[Category:DCN_News]]

Editor at 09:48, 29 June 2017

2017-06-29T09:48:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 29 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:Officebuilding.jpeg]]
		+
	When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning a catastrophic property fire showed why absolute frankness is required.		When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning a catastrophic property fire showed why absolute frankness is required.

Editor: Created page with "When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning..."

2017-06-29T09:47:47Z

Created page with "When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning..."

New page

When taking out an insurance policy, it might seem tempting to minimise the risk insured against with a view to reducing the premium. However, a recent High Court case concerning a catastrophic property fire showed why absolute frankness is required.

The case of Dalecroft Properties Limited v Underwriters [2017], concerned a five-storey mixed commercial and residential property that was so severely damaged by a fire that it had to be demolished.

Its owners claimed a seven-figure sum from their insurers, but the latter refused to pay on the basis that various features of the property had been misrepresented to them.

When applying for the insurance, the owners had described the property as in good repair. However, the Court noted evidence that, among other things, many of its windows were broken or falling out and that its roof leaked.

The owners’ assertions that the property did not have a flat roof and had not been subject to malicious acts of vandalism were also substantially incorrect.

In refusing to order the insurers to indemnify the owners for their loss, the Court noted that the latter had made no real effort to fairly represent the risk. Had they done so, the insurers would probably have declined cover.

In the circumstances, the insurers were entitled to avoid the policy and tender the return of the premium.

--[[User:Rex_Cowell_Solicitors|Rex Cowell Solicitors]]

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

* Caveat emptor in property sales.
* Directors and officers insurance.
* Employer's liability insurance.
* Excepted risk.
* Failure to mention asbestos.
* Failure to notify tenant.
* Insurance.
* Legal indemnity insurance.
* Non-negligent liability insurance.
* Property disrepair and landlord liabilities.
* Specified perils.

[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:News]]