Dawsons Ltd v. Bonnin and Others [1921] ScotLR 334 (12 March 1921)

The policy is void because the insured's answer regarding the usual garage location was untrue and constituted a material misstatement incorporated as the basis of the contract, material to assessing the premium, and the pursuers failed to rebut the presumption of materiality.

Citation: [1921] ScotLR 334
Parties: Pursuer: Dawsons Limited; Defender: H. A. V. Bonnin and Others (Underwriters at Lloyds, London)
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 12 March 1921
Procedural Posture: Insurance Contract Dispute / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) After Proof
Outcome: defenders assoilzied (absolved); policy void
Legal Topics: Misrepresentation, Warranty, Materiality, Policy Voidance

Insurance Law Contract Law Misrepresentation Warranty Materiality Policy Voidance

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Dawsons Limited

Pursuer

H. A. V. Bonnin and Others (Underwriters at Lloyds, London)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Insurance Contract Dispute / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) After Proof

Legal Issues

1 Whether an untrue answer in the insurance proposal voids the policy
2 Whether incorporation of the proposal as the basis of contract imports an express warranty
3 Whether materiality is required for voidance under the policy conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

defenders assoilzied (absolved); policy void

Orders

Second finding of Lord Ordinary recalled; policy found void due to material misstatement; decree of absolvitor granted to defenders; quoad ultra adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor