Within the latest determination in Berkshire Belongings (West London) Ltd v AXA Insurance coverage UK Plc [2021] EWHC 2689 (Comm), Lionel Persey QC, sitting as a Choose of the Excessive Courtroom, gave the primary English determination on the insured’s responsibility of truthful presentation as set out within the Insurance coverage Act 2015 (the ‘Insurance coverage Act’). The choice addresses two basic ideas arising from the responsibility, specifically what constitutes a fabric circumstance and whether or not the failure to reveal induced AXA to put in writing the chance i.e would AXA in reality have declined the chance had the fabric circumstance been disclosed? The choice addresses each the statutory ideas as set out within the Act in addition to necessary ideas related to materials circumstances established by authorities previous to the Act which stay intact.

The Courtroom thought-about the responsibility of truthful presentation as set out in Half 2 of the Act, which requires, in Part 3(4)(a) “disclosure of each materials circumstance which the insured is aware of or should know”. A ‘materials circumstance’ is outlined in Part 7 of the Act, as follows:

(3) A circumstance or illustration is materials if it could affect the judgement of a prudent insurer in figuring out whether or not to take the chance and, if that’s the case, on what phrases.

(4) Examples of issues which can be materials circumstances are –

(a) particular or uncommon info regarding the chance,
(b) any specific issues which led the insured to hunt insurance coverage cowl for the chance,
(c) something which these involved with the category of insurance coverage and area of exercise in query would generally perceive as being one thing that needs to be handled in a good presentation of dangers of the sort in query.

The Courtroom additionally addressed whether or not AXA had a treatment underneath Part 8 (and Schedule 1) of the Act as a consequence of the failure to reveal the fabric circumstance in breach of the responsibility of truthful presentation:

Part 8 Treatments for breach
(1) The insurer has a treatment towards the insured for a breach of the responsibility of truthful presentation provided that the insurer reveals that, however for the breach, the insurer –
(a) wouldn’t have entered into the contract of insurance coverage in any respect,
or
(b) would have finished so solely on totally different phrases…”.

In Berkshire Belongings, the claimant policyholder was a three way partnership automobile included in 2017 with the target to buy and develop a property in Brentford. In 2020, a defective sprinkler precipitated vital water injury to round 40 flats and different communal areas within the property. Accordingly, the claimant offered claims to AXA, the defendant insurer, underneath its Contractors’ All Threat coverage and its Enterprise Interruption coverage.

The coverage in query had been renewed in November 2019 and included a ‘truthful presentation of threat’ clause which particularly acknowledged:

“The proposer for insurance coverage, its companions or administrators or some other one that performs a big position in managing or organising the enterprise actions, haven’t, both personally or in any enterprise capability, been convicted of a legal offence or charged (however not but tried) with a legal offence”

AXA denied the declare on the premise that the claimant had didn’t speak in confidence to it the truth that one in all its administrators was the topic of legal fees in Malaysia filed in August 2019 (due to this fact previous to the time the coverage was renewed). The costs have been subsequently dropped in October 2020 following a worldwide settlement.

Earlier than the Courtroom, AXA submitted that, had it been conscious of the fees on the time of renewal, it could not have agreed to supply insurance coverage to the claimant. The claimant contended that the fees didn’t represent a fabric circumstance as a result of (i) the fees associated to an organization which was not linked to the claimant; (ii) the director was not personally concerned (iii) the director was not dealing with allegations of non-public involvement in fraud or different wrongdoing; and (iv) the fees have been politically and commercially motivated.

There was vital debate and evaluation as as to whether the fees have been a “ethical hazard” to be disclosed as a fabric circumstance. On condition that there was no settled determination as to the that means of ethical hazard, the Choose determined that the Courtroom ought to look to the statutory definition of “materials circumstance” in part 7(3) and (4) of the Insurance coverage Act when contemplating the info of the case earlier than it.

When making his evaluation as as to whether the fees did in reality represent a ‘materials circumstance’, the Choose agreed with AXA that related the well-established ideas had not been modified in gentle of the Insurance coverage Act. Certainly, it was famous that: “the ideas of “materials circumstance” and “prudent insurer” have been deliberately taken from the prevailing statute and [the Law Commission] would anticipate the prevailing case legislation to proceed for use to interpret them”. 5 core ideas have been then articulated by the Choose:

1. The materiality of a selected truth is a query of truth and is to be decided by the circumstances of every case.
2. Materiality is to be examined on the time of placement and never by reference to subsequent occasions.
3. Details elevating doubts as to the chance are ample to be materials. It’s not vital for the info to be proven, with hindsight, to have truly affected the chance.
4. The general impact of the ‘prudent insurer’ check is that whether or not there was a good presentation of the chance stays to be assessed principally from the attitude of an insurer.
5. A circumstance doesn’t need to be decisive for the hypothetical prudent insurer in figuring out whether or not to take the chance or on what phrases.

Recognising that it was nicely established {that a} cost of a legal offence will typically represent a “materials circumstance”, and making use of the above ideas to the info, together with the proof given by AXA’s underwriters, the Choose discovered that the fees did certainly represent a ‘materials circumstance’ for the needs of the Insurance coverage Act and due to this fact ought to have been disclosed on the time the coverage was renewed. If the fees had been disclosed, AXA wouldn’t have written the insurance coverage. The claimant’s declare due to this fact failed.

This case is a helpful reminder of the ideas relevant to points regarding ‘materials circumstances’ and a welcome affirmation that the related ideas present in case legislation haven’t been outmoded by the Insurance coverage Act. From a industrial and sensible perspective, it’s a helpful immediate for policyholders to recognise their responsibility of truthful presentation and the necessity for compliance with that responsibility on the inception of any insurance coverage coverage and on every renewal.

Article authored by Mark Everiss and Ben Sharrock