- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 29 Jun 2017
Misrepresentation and insurance
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 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.
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.
 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.
- Legal indemnity insurance.
- Material non-disclosure.
- Non-negligent liability insurance.
- Property disrepair and landlord liabilities.
- Specified perils.
Featured articles and news
Dynamo packages data ready for Revit.
How does EVA rate a project's progress?
How can it benefit the built environment?
The benefits of early contractor involvement.
Why it is so important for health and wellbeing.
A highly effective method of managing supply chains.
How it can benefit construction.
Free guide to commissioning for site managers published by NHBC and BSRIA.
Resolving quickly to minimise delay and costs.
Tackling domestic abuse.
Disallowed costs vs. defined costs. Which is which?