The Forgettable Water Claim: Consumer Non-Disclosure and Technical Defences
Aoife Murphy holds a home buildings and contents policy with sums insured of €420,000 on the buildings and €60,000 on contents. In March 2024 a kitchen fire causes €95,000 of damage. The proposal form completed at renewal in November 2023 asked: “Have you made any claim or suffered any loss in the last five years?” Aoife answered “No”. In fact, in 2021 she claimed €3,150 for escape of water after a bathroom leak. She says she forgot because the claim was small and the insurer paid promptly. The policy includes a “basis of contract” clause and a condition requiring a working smoke alarm on each floor; there was no alarm in the kitchen. The insurer discovers the 2021 claim and the missing alarm and writes to avoid the policy, refunding the premium. Aoife’s solicitor argues that the Consumer Insurance Contracts Act 2019 protects her.
1. Is Aoife a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Insurance Contracts Act 2019, and how does the Act change the insurer’s remedies for the non-disclosure of the 2021 claim? Distinguish innocent, negligent, reckless and deliberate misrepresentation.
Read the worked answer
Aoife is a consumer: she is a natural person taking out home insurance for purposes outside any trade, business or profession. The 2019 Act therefore applies.
Under the Act the pre-contract duty is not a general duty of disclosure. The insurer must ask clear questions, and the consumer must answer them honestly and with reasonable care. The question about claims or losses in the last five years plainly covered the 2021 escape-of-water claim, so the answer “No” was inaccurate.
The legal category matters:
- Innocent - the consumer reasonably misunderstood or forgot. The insurer cannot avoid; it may apply a proportionate remedy.
- Negligent - the consumer failed to take reasonable care. Again, no avoidance; proportionate remedy only.
- Reckless - the consumer did not care whether the answer was true or false. The insurer may avoid the contract.
- Deliberate - the consumer intended to mislead. The insurer may avoid and may also retain the premium.
On these facts Aoife did not intend to mislead. She knew of the claim, so the answer is unlikely to be wholly innocent, but the small amount and prompt payment support a finding of negligence at most. The insurer’s blanket avoidance is therefore difficult to defend under the Act.
2. Analyse the effect of the ‘basis of contract’ clause and the smoke-alarm condition on the insurer’s ability to decline the fire claim.
Read the worked answer
The ‘basis of contract’ clause has no effect in a consumer insurance contract under the 2019 Act. It cannot turn Aoife’s answers into warranties, and the insurer cannot rely on it to avoid the policy or refuse the claim.
The smoke-alarm condition is a term of the contract, but it is not a warranty that automatically discharges the insurer. For a consumer contract, a breach of a term does not entitle the insurer to refuse a claim unless the breach is material to the risk and the loss is connected with the breach. Two points follow:
- The absence of a kitchen smoke alarm did not cause the fire. A smoke alarm may reduce damage by giving warning, but the insurer would need evidence that the damage would have been less had an alarm been fitted.
- The condition is not a condition precedent to liability in the consumer context. The insurer cannot use it as a technical defence to the whole claim.
The insurer could, at most, argue for a reduction in respect of additional damage attributable to the missing alarm, and only if it can prove that additional damage. It cannot decline the claim outright on this ground.
3. Recommend a defensible settlement outcome for the insurer, showing the reasoning and any proportionate remedy you would apply.
Read the worked answer
The insurer should withdraw the avoidance. The correct route is a proportionate remedy for negligent misrepresentation.
The insurer should ask its underwriter what it would have done had the 2021 escape-of-water claim been disclosed. For example, if the underwriter would have charged an additional 15% premium or applied a higher excess, the claim should be reduced by a proportionate amount linked to the premium underpayment. The reduction should be explained in writing with the calculation.
The smoke-alarm point should not be used to refuse the claim. If the insurer has evidence that the missing alarm increased the fire damage, it may reduce only that additional element. Otherwise the condition has no financial effect.
The insurer should then pay the balance promptly, together with any applicable interest or compensation for unreasonable delay. The file should record the underwriting evidence, the proportionate calculation and the reasons for not relying on avoidance. This outcome respects the 2019 Act, treats Aoife fairly and avoids an Ombudsman finding that the insurer relied on a technical defence.