Declining to quote is not a refusal to insure

Donald Dinnie, Norton Rose Fulbright

In this matter the question arose whether there had been a material non-disclosure of a refusal by an insurer to insure.

The relevant insurer had declined to furnish a quotation.

In proposing for the insurance, the insured had been asked four questions which the court categorised as referring to the insurance cover in existence at the time.

The express questions asked of the insured related only to whether there had been a refusal to renew cover and not whether there had been a refusal in respect of new cover or insurance for a new item.

The court said that the questions asked were so ambiguous that the insured could not have been faulted for failing to disclose a prior the refusal by an insurer to furnish him with a quotation.

There was no obligation on the insured to disclose that an insurer declined to quote on required insurance cover unless such a question was clearly and unambiguously asked.  It had not been.

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot