- 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.
 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
A quick introduction to a very complicated subject.
CIOB suggests the economic reach of construction is double the official figures.
The first US building to achieve BREEAM Outstanding In-Use.
70 buildings from 70 years of Concrete Quarterly. Book review.
Conserving the iron roof at the Albert Dock.
Delivering an infrastructure revolution.
The admissibility of evidence.
How many can you name? 37 anyone?
CIOB respond to the points-based system.
When is the weather considered 'exceptionally adverse'?
ECA backs call for a rolling programme of rail electrification.