Insurer Entitled to Refuse Cover Following Loss of £190,000 Rolex Watch

2nd August 2021 By

Failing to accurately respond to insurers’ questions when taking out a policy is highly likely to render your cover worthless. A businessman found that out to his cost after losing a £190,000 Rolex watch whilst on a skiing trip.

The man launched proceedings after his insurer refused to pay out for his loss. The insurer required him to provide strict proof of how the loss occurred and argued that it was in any event entitled to avoid the policy. That was on the basis that, when the policy was applied for, there was a failure to disclose a prior £15,000 claim in respect of a diamond which fell out of a ring whilst his then girlfriend was wearing it.

Ruling on the case, the High Court formed a very unfavourable view of the man’s credibility as a witness, but was not prepared to find that the claim was fraudulent. The Court accepted that the watch was lost during the skiing trip to Aspen, Colorado, in circumstances that were covered by the policy.

The Court nevertheless found that the failure to disclose the prior claim in respect of the lost diamond amounted to a misrepresentation which entitled the insurer to avoid the policy. Both the man and his executive assistant, who made the representation to a broker on his behalf, knew that the answer provided to the insurer’s request for information concerning previous claims was wrong.

On the balance of probabilities, the Court found that, had the previous claim been disclosed as it should have been, the insurer would have declined the policy application. The insurer was thus entitled to refuse the claim but was required to repay the premium paid in respect of the policy.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...