07.08.2013 Views

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PART 3<br />

PRE-CONTRACT INFORMATION AND<br />

CONSUMERS: ASSESSING THE CURRENT<br />

POSITION<br />

THE CURRENT LAW<br />

3.1 Under current law, an insurer that has been given incorrect information by the<br />

proposer has the right to avoid the contract for misrepresentation. 1 The insurer<br />

needs to show that the information induced it to enter the contract <strong>and</strong> that it<br />

would have influenced the judgement of a prudent insurer in assessing the risk.<br />

Except where the incorrect statement was one of opinion rather than of fact, it<br />

does not matter that the insured was honest, or even that they had reasonable<br />

grounds for believing that what they said was correct.<br />

3.2 The law also allows insurers to add to these remedies. If the insurer obtained a<br />

warranty that the information was correct, it is discharged from liability even if the<br />

information was not material <strong>and</strong> did not influence the insurer’s decision. An<br />

insurer may do this either by adding a specific warranty to the contract, or by<br />

using a “basis of the contract” clause on the proposal form. Again, honesty or<br />

lack of negligence on the part of the proposer is irrelevant.<br />

3.3 Even if the insurer has not sought information from the insured, the latter is<br />

bound to disclose any material fact of which it is aware, or in the case of a<br />

business that it ought to know in the ordinary course of business. If the insurer<br />

would not have entered the policy on the same terms had it had the information, it<br />

may avoid the policy.<br />

3.4 We have seen that the strict legal rights of consumers have been supplemented<br />

by three measures - the Statements of Practice issued by the Association of<br />

British Insurers (ABI), regulation by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) <strong>and</strong><br />

the dispute resolution service of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Here<br />

we examine these measures <strong>and</strong> ask if they are an adequate substitute for law<br />

reform. Since the FSA Rules apply only to consumer insurance, <strong>and</strong> the FOS<br />

scheme applies only to consumers <strong>and</strong> some small businesses, we consider<br />

consumer insurance in this Part <strong>and</strong> Part 4. We then turn to business insurance<br />

in Part 5.<br />

THE ABI STATEMENTS OF PRACTICE<br />

3.5 The Statement of General Insurance Practice (SGIP) <strong>and</strong> the Statement of Long-<br />

Term Insurance Practice (SLIP) addressed the problem of non-disclosure in three<br />

ways: 2<br />

1 See Part 2, paras 2.12 to 2.33.<br />

2 See para 1.20 above. The text of both SGIP <strong>and</strong> SLIP, <strong>and</strong> a more detailed description of<br />

their requirements, can be found in Appendices B <strong>and</strong> C of our first Issues Paper, available<br />

on our website. See<br />

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/insurance_contact_law_issues_paper_1.pdf<br />

52

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!