The Material Non-Disclosure on a Retail Shop Fire Claim
Priya owns a small hardware shop insured under a commercial fire policy with a sum insured of £180,000. When she completed the proposal form 14 months ago, the question asked: 'Have you or any business you have managed suffered a fire loss in the last five years?' She answered 'No'. In fact, a fire at a previous shop she ran caused £22,000 of damage three years before, and she had claimed on a different insurer's policy. The earlier fire was caused by faulty wiring, which was remediated. Last month a fire at the current shop caused £95,000 of damage. The cause is under investigation but appears to be an unrelated electrical fault in a display fridge. The insurer has now discovered the earlier claim and is threatening to avoid the policy from inception.
1. Advise the insurer on whether it can avoid the policy, applying the law on misrepresentation and non-disclosure for commercial policyholders.
Read the worked answer
The key issue is whether the false answer to a clear question was a misrepresentation and whether it was material and inducement-tested.
- Was there a duty? For a commercial policyholder, the duty is one of fair presentation of the risk (Insurance Act 2015). The question was specific and unambiguous, so Priya had a clear duty to disclose the prior loss.
- Was the statement false? Yes - she answered 'No' to a question that plainly covered the earlier fire.
- Was it material? A prior fire loss is presumptively material to a property insurer; it bears directly on moral hazard and risk quality. The insurer need not show it would have declined - only that it would have influenced the judgment of a prudent underwriter.
- Inducement. The insurer must show it was induced by the answer. If the underwriter can evidence that a 'Yes' would have prompted further enquiry or different terms, inducement is made out.
Conclusion: The insurer has strong grounds to avoid the policy and refuse the claim, subject to the proportionate remedies available under the 2015 Act where the breach was not deliberate or reckless. Because the answer was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation (she knew the earlier fire), the insurer may avoid and retain the premium. If the breach were merely negligent, the insurer would instead apply a proportionate remedy (e.g. reduce the claim payment to reflect what it would have charged or the terms it would have imposed).
2. Suppose the insurer decides to avoid the policy. Explain the practical consequences for Priya and any third party with an interest in the shop.
Read the worked answer
Avoidance operates ab initio - the policy is treated as never having existed.
- Priya loses all cover for the £95,000 loss. The insurer is not liable and may retain the premium where the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless.
- Return of premium: if the breach were only negligent, the insurer would normally return the premium (subject to any set-off for the period of cover it provided).
- Third-party interests: if a lender or landlord is named on the policy as an interested party, their interest is generally affected by the insured's conduct unless they hold a separate, independent interest or the policy contains a non-vitiation clause. Most standard commercial fire policies do not protect a mortgagee against the insured's own misrepresentation, so the lender's security is exposed.
- Practical steps: Priya should be advised to check whether any non-vitiation or severability wording protects an innocent co-insured, and to consider a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman only if she is an eligible complainant (small business threshold). Otherwise her remedy is contractual/legal challenge to the avoidance.