The Undisclosed Spray Booth: Rescission After a Fire
Nadia owns a small furniture assembly workshop insured under a commercial fire policy. At the 1 February renewal she signed a proposal form that asked: "Is any welding, open-flame work, spray painting or woodworking machinery used on the premises?" She answered "No." Five months earlier she had let part of the unit to a subtenant who installed a spray-painting booth and a circular saw; Nadia assumed the question referred only to her own two employees. On 12 June a spark from the booth ignited solvent vapour and fire destroyed stock, machinery and part of the roof. The adjuster's reinstatement estimate is $310,000 against a contents sum insured of $400,000. The insurer has written to avoid the policy from inception and refund the premium, relying on non-disclosure and on a policy condition requiring disclosure of changes in risk. Nadia says the fire would have happened anyway, that her subtenant caused it, and that she never read the condition. A bank loan of $180,000 is secured on the unit.
1. Can the insurer avoid the policy? Apply the materiality and inducement tests to these facts, and say what Nadia can realistically argue.
Read the worked answer
Materiality. A material fact is one that a prudent insurer would want to know when deciding whether to accept the risk, what premium to charge, or what terms to impose. A solvent-based spray booth and a circular saw in a furniture workshop are textbook fire and explosion hazards: underwriters routinely decline, exclude spray painting, or load the rate heavily. The fact is material on any objective test, and Nadia's belief that the question applied only to her own staff does not change that - the wording asks about use "on the premises," not about who does it.
Inducement. Rescission is not automatic. The insurer must show it was actually influenced: that with the truth it would have declined, charged more, or imposed an exclusion or a condition (for example, a spray booth warranty). Nadia's agent should demand the underwriter's evidence on this, such as the rating manual entry and a written statement of the alternative terms. If the insurer would have issued on identical terms, there is no remedy, or at most damages for a careless misstatement.
Nadia's arguments. (1) Ambiguity - a badly drafted question is construed against the party who wrote it, though here the wording is fairly wide. (2) Knowledge and waiver - if her broker or the insurer's inspector had seen the booth, the right to avoid may be lost. (3) Proportionality - many modern regimes replace avoidance with a proportionate remedy for innocent or negligent non-disclosure, so she may recover a reduced amount rather than nothing.
Likely outcome. Avoidance is probably available, but a negotiated or proportionate settlement is a realistic fallback. Advise her in writing, preserve the proposal, and flag the bank's interest.
2. Nadia argues that the non-disclosure did not cause the loss. Explain how causation operates here, and how the answer would differ if the policy had contained a warranty that no spray painting is carried out on the premises.
Read the worked answer
Causation and rescission are different questions. When an insurer avoids for pre-contract non-disclosure it is unwinding the contract, not declining a claim. It does not have to show that the undisclosed fact caused the fire - only that the fact was material and induced the terms. So "the booth would have caught fire anyway" and "the subtenant caused it" do not defeat rescission. Causation becomes relevant at a second stage: if the insurer instead sought damages for misrepresentation, the measure would be what it would have charged or paid out had it known the truth.
Where causation does matter. If the dispute were about breach of a policy condition or a warranty during the term, the position changes. A warranty is a term whose breach discharges the insurer from the date of breach, and in most markets the insurer need not show that the breach caused the loss. A condition precedent to liability works similarly. Nadia's argument would therefore fail even more decisively under a warranty than under a representation.
Practical distinction for the exam. A representation is a statement made before the contract that induces it; the remedy is rescission or damages. A warranty is a promise written into the contract; breach suspends or terminates cover prospectively, and premium is not automatically refunded. Had the policy warranted "no spray painting," the insurer would not need to prove inducement at all - it would simply show painting was taking place, and would owe nothing for losses after that date, though it would still be liable for earlier losses.
For Nadia. Her strongest line is inducement and proportionality, not causation. If the claim is otherwise valid, the reinstatement measure is the cost of repair or replacement up to the sum insured, with no average because $400,000 exceeds the $310,000 loss.