Whitlam v Andrew Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 (t/a K6M Motor Policies At Lloyds)

Whitlam v Andrew Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 (t/a K6M Motor Policies At Lloyds)

The appellant's failure to disclose his status as a trainee golf professional, and the incomplete description of his occupation and employer, constituted material non-disclosure. This justified the insurer's avoidance of the policy, even though the non-disclosure was innocent and resulted from the broker's actions. The duty of disclosure in insurance contracts is strict and applies to all material facts, not just those relating to paid employment.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Mark Whitlam; Respondent/claimant: Andrew Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 trading as KGM Motor Policies at Lloyds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Non Disclosure, Motor Insurance, Duty of Disclosure, Proposal Forms, Brokers' Duties
Insurance Law Contract Law Material Non Disclosure Motor Insurance Duty of Disclosure Proposal Forms Brokers' Duties

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Whitlam

Appellant/defendant

Andrew Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 trading as KGM Motor Policies at Lloyds

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to disclose his status as a trainee golf professional constituted material non-disclosure justifying avoidance of the motor insurance policy
  2. 2 Whether the description 'shop assistant – retailing' was a misleading or incomplete answer to the proposal form's questions on occupation and business
  3. 3 Whether use of the vehicle to attend a residential course constituted use for a place of work other than the permanent place of work

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's failure to disclose his status as a trainee golf professional, and the incomplete description of his occupation and employer, constituted material non-disclosure. This justified the insurer's avoidance of the policy, even though the non-disclosure was innocent and resulted from the broker's actions. The duty of disclosure in insurance contracts is strict and applies to all material facts, not just those relating to paid employment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Second paragraph of the declaration (relating to non-disclosure of use of vehicle to a place of work other than permanent place of work) discharged
  • Appellant to pay respondent’s costs of the appeal