Insurance contract disclosure – an uncertain balance

This article canvasses recent case law adjudicating the uneasy disclosure balance between the interests of the insurer and the insured in the process of transacting an insurance contract. It examines also the consequences of non-disclosure and misrepresentation and whether the avowed legislative intent — that the liability of the insurer in respect of a claim is to be reduced to the amount that would place the insurer in the position it would have been had the non-disclosure or misrepresentation not occurred — is being achieved in practice. As there is no doubt as to who bears the onus of proof as to non-disclosure or misrepresentation it is surprising that insurers continue to flounder in this regard in relation to underwriting guidelines and adherence to them. The article reviews recent case law in this context and stresses that an insurer wishing to preserve its capacity to avoid liability on the basis that it would not have entered into a contract at all had the true situation been known to it must maintain detailed underwriting guidelines supported by consistent adherence to those guidelines. Recent case law also emphasises that the insurer must provide clear and cogent admissible evidence from appropriate personnel and officers of the company to discharge its onus.