Whither the Duty of Good Faith in UK Insurance Contracts, John Lowry

112 CONNECTICUT INSURANCE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 16:1
The insured is thus under a duty to disclose material facts, irrespective of
whether he or she appreciated their materiality. 70 This combined test can,
and does give rise to unjust results. For example, in Horne v. Poland, the
insured’s policy was voidable due to his failure to disclose that he was an
alien having come to this country at the age of twelve, and that he had
changed his name from that of Euda Gedale to Harry Horne. 71 Lush J.,
having noted that the applicable principle of law had been stated by
Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Joel, added:
If a reasonable person would know that underwriters would
naturally be influenced, in deciding whether to accept the
risk and what premiums to charge, by those circumstances
[i.e., that he came from a country where his countrymen
were not as careful and trustworthy as Englishmen], the
fact that they were kept in ignorance of them and indeed
were misled, is fatal to the plaintiff's claim. 72
Similarly, in Becker v. Marshall, Salter J., also applying the test laid down
by Fletcher Moulton L.J., held on an issue of concealment as to foreign
origin and change of name, that while the claimant:
… in good faith did not realise that these were things
material to be disclosed…the average business man, the
average reasonable man, would not have taken that view,
and…that a reasonable man, the average reasonable man,
would have disclosed and would have known that it was
necessary to disclose. 73
L.J.J. dissented, although they base their concurring judgments on different
grounds.
70 See EGGERS ET AL., supra note 68, 3.10-3.11.
71 [1922] 2 K.B. 364, 364.
72
Id. at 367. The decision must now be viewed as running counter to the
Race Relations Act, 1976, c.74 (Eng.).
73
(1922) 11 Lloyd’s List L.R. 114, 119 (K.B.). Fletcher Moulton L.J.’s
reasoning was further explained by Roskill J in Godfrey v. Britannic Assurance
Co. Ltd., [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 515, 529 (Q.B.D.):