The Non-Disclosure That Wasn't Asked About
A 47-year-old applicant submits a KES 15,000,000 life policy application with a KES 8,000,000 critical illness rider. On the medical questionnaire, the question 'Have you ever been diagnosed with or treated for any heart condition?' is answered 'No'. The applicant had, 14 months earlier, attended a cardiac clinic for palpitations; an ECG was normal and the cardiologist recorded 'no structural disease, likely stress-related, no follow-up required'. The applicant considered the episode trivial and did not think of it as a 'condition'. The underwriter, working standard rates, has not requested the clinic notes. The policy is issued at standard rates. Two years later the insured dies of an unrelated accident, and the insurer discovers the clinic attendance during a routine claims audit. The insurer proposes to avoid the policy for non-disclosure.
1. Was the answer to the questionnaire a material misrepresentation or a non-disclosure? Analyse whether the insurer can avoid the contract, distinguishing the common-law position on materiality from the effect of the questionnaire's own wording.
Read the worked answer
Two separate questions must be kept apart.
1. Was there a misrepresentation? A misrepresentation is a positive false statement. The answer 'No' is literally a statement that no cardiac condition existed. Whether it is false depends on what a reasonable person would understand by 'heart condition'. A one-off attendance for palpitations with a normal ECG and no diagnosis arguably is not a 'condition' in the ordinary sense. The applicant's honest belief is relevant to whether the statement was made fraudulently, but not to whether it was false. This is genuinely borderline: a court could find the answer false but honestly given (an innocent misrepresentation).
2. Was there a non-disclosure? The common-law duty of disclosure (as codified in most common-law jurisdictions, for example the UK's Insurance Act 2015 and equivalent provisions in Kenya, Nigeria and India) requires disclosure of facts a prudent insurer would want to know, subject to the 'reasonable insured' qualification and the duty to make a fair presentation. A single clinic visit with normal results and no follow-up is unlikely to be material to a prudent underwriter's decision on a KES 15m life policy - but materiality is a question of fact for the underwriter to prove, not to assert.
3. The questionnaire's wording matters. Where an insurer asks a specific question, the scope of the duty is narrowed to answering that question honestly and completely. The insurer cannot later complain of non-disclosure of something its own question was too narrow to capture. Here the question asked about a 'diagnosis' or 'treatment' for a 'condition'. The applicant was neither diagnosed with nor treated for a condition.
4. Inducement. Even if there were a misrepresentation, the insurer must show it was induced by it - i.e., that a prudent underwriter would have acted differently. Given standard rates would likely have been offered anyway, inducement is hard to establish.
Conclusion: The insurer's avoidance is weak. The better analysis is that there was no material non-disclosure, or at most an immaterial innocent misrepresentation. A proportionate-remedy regime (as under the UK 2015 Act) would likely give no remedy at all where the insurer would have written the same terms. The insurer should pay the claim and treat the audit finding as a training issue, not a repudiation opportunity.
2. Assume the insurer had asked a broad 'catch-all' question: 'Is there anything else about your health you should tell us?' Would that change your answer? Explain the limits of catch-all questions.
Read the worked answer
A catch-all question does not rescue the insurer, for three reasons.
First, a catch-all question cannot override the specific questions that precede it. Where an insurer asks a series of precise questions and then adds a sweeping residual question, the reasonable insured is entitled to read the specific questions as defining the scope of what the insurer wants. A residual question does not convert a proposal form into an open-ended duty to disclose everything.
Second, the duty of disclosure is qualified by the 'reasonable insured' test. The applicant must disclose what a reasonable person in their position would consider material, not what a hyper-cautious underwriter might theoretically wish to know. A single normal clinic visit that the applicant reasonably regarded as trivial is precisely the kind of fact a reasonable insured would not think worth mentioning.
Third, a catch-all question is often too vague to be enforceable. Courts and regulators have repeatedly held that an insurer cannot rely on a question so broadly framed that a reasonable applicant cannot know what it is asking for. The insurer bears the consequences of its own drafting.
Practical implication: The insurer's real remedy is better questionnaire design - asking 'Have you ever attended a hospital, clinic or doctor for chest pain, palpitations or any heart-related symptom?' - and better underwriting (requesting the clinic notes where a positive answer is given). Avoidance after the event is not a substitute for underwriting at the point of issue.