Non-disclosure: Insurance and Good Faith
Non-disclosure covers a situation where insured party failed to disclose the material facts, even if he may not be asked directly. This fact is known by the insured, and insurance company will not know at the point of accepting the insurance coverage.
Under English law, all parties to an insurance contract are to act in uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith). Insured must disclose all material facts (ie: subject matters that will affect an underwriter decision whether to accept the risk), even it’s not specifically asked. Otherwise the policy is void or voidable.
And in our case, BH knew about the previous claims matter and did not inform PIC about it. Which this is a material fact that would influence the underwriter judgment in proposing the premium and determining the risk. The objective test clearly shows that the knowledge of past claims history of insurer is important for underwriter assessment. Hence, it gave rise to effect of distorting the true information. The effect to non-disclosure is that PIC has the right to void the contract and refuse claims under it.
The General rule to Duty to Disclose is found in Woolcott v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd. Misrepresentation by the insured… avoiding the contract. It is usually considered less important than the doctrine of non-disclosure and has often been subsumed by it as a result. Nevertheless, it is different from non-disclosure as misrepresentation focuses on the untruth of statements made by the insured whereas non-disclosure deals with the insured’s silence. It is usual for the insurer to plead both grounds of avoidance since the duty to answer questions correctly on a proposal form is also part of the insured’s duty of good faith.
( www.SingaporeLaw.sg - Misrepresentation Act)
Insurance law said it’s the duty of the insurer to answer question or provide information honestly and carefully. The misquoted on the worker wages is a clearly a misrepresentation. The false statement of fact
Under English law, all parties to an insurance contract are to act in uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith). Insured must disclose all material facts (ie: subject matters that will affect an underwriter decision whether to accept the risk), even it’s not specifically asked. Otherwise the policy is void or voidable.
And in our case, BH knew about the previous claims matter and did not inform PIC about it. Which this is a material fact that would influence the underwriter judgment in proposing the premium and determining the risk. The objective test clearly shows that the knowledge of past claims history of insurer is important for underwriter assessment. Hence, it gave rise to effect of distorting the true information. The effect to non-disclosure is that PIC has the right to void the contract and refuse claims under it.
The General rule to Duty to Disclose is found in Woolcott v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd. Misrepresentation by the insured… avoiding the contract. It is usually considered less important than the doctrine of non-disclosure and has often been subsumed by it as a result. Nevertheless, it is different from non-disclosure as misrepresentation focuses on the untruth of statements made by the insured whereas non-disclosure deals with the insured’s silence. It is usual for the insurer to plead both grounds of avoidance since the duty to answer questions correctly on a proposal form is also part of the insured’s duty of good faith.
( www.SingaporeLaw.sg - Misrepresentation Act)
Insurance law said it’s the duty of the insurer to answer question or provide information honestly and carefully. The misquoted on the worker wages is a clearly a misrepresentation. The false statement of fact