R&R Developments Ltd v AXA Insurance UK Plc

R&R Developments Ltd v AXA Insurance UK Plc

The questions in the insurer's proposal form, properly construed, related only to the insured and its directors personally, not to companies in which directors were involved. The answers given were true on this construction. Even if ambiguous, the contra proferentem principle would apply, and the answers would still be true. The insurer, by the form of its questions, waived disclosure of facts relating to companies in which directors were involved.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: R&R Developments Limited; Defendant/respondent: Axa Insurance UK plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation in Insurance Proposals, Construction of Insurance Contracts, Duty of Disclosure, Contra Proferentem Rule, Waiver of Disclosure
Insurance Law Contract Law Misrepresentation in Insurance Proposals Construction of Insurance Contracts Duty of Disclosure Contra Proferentem Rule Waiver of Disclosure

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R&R Developments Limited

Claimant/appellant

Axa Insurance UK plc

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the answers given by the claimant to the insurer's proposal form were misrepresentations or non-disclosures
  2. 2 Whether the insurer's questions extended to insolvency or claims involving companies in which directors were involved
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in proposal questions should be resolved contra proferentem

Ratio Decidendi

The questions in the insurer's proposal form, properly construed, related only to the insured and its directors personally, not to companies in which directors were involved. The answers given were true on this construction. Even if ambiguous, the contra proferentem principle would apply, and the answers would still be true. The insurer, by the form of its questions, waived disclosure of facts relating to companies in which directors were involved.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Declarations to be agreed by the parties reflecting the court's findings that the answers given were true and that disclosure of certain facts was waived.
  • Costs and consequential matters to be agreed by the parties.