James v CGU Insurance Plc & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 541 (13 March 2002)

James v CGU Insurance Plc & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 541 (13 March 2002)

The judge found that the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose material facts, particularly dishonesty in handling breakdown warranties and disputes with tax authorities, constituted material non-disclosure and moral hazard. These failures were objectively material to a prudent insurer and causally connected to the contract. The statement of general insurance practice did not apply. The policy was a single combined policy. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 541
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Roger Owen James; Defendant/respondent: CGU Insurance PLC; Defendant/respondent: Supreme & St Albans Insurance Brokers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Material Non Disclosure, Moral Hazard, Insurance Avoidance, Proposal Forms, Combined Policy
Insurance Law Contract Law Material Non Disclosure Moral Hazard Insurance Avoidance Proposal Forms Combined Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Owen James

Claimant/applicant

CGU Insurance PLC

Defendant/respondent

Supreme & St Albans Insurance Brokers

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy for material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosures were material and causally connected to the making of the contract
  3. 3 Whether the statement of general insurance practice applied to the policy

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose material facts, particularly dishonesty in handling breakdown warranties and disputes with tax authorities, constituted material non-disclosure and moral hazard. These failures were objectively material to a prudent insurer and causally connected to the contract. The statement of general insurance practice did not apply. The policy was a single combined policy. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed