SOUTHERN ROCK INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v HADAR HAFEEZ [2017] ScotCS CSOH_127 (10 October 2017)

SOUTHERN ROCK INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v HADAR HAFEEZ [2017] ScotCS CSOH_127 (10 October 2017)

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's representation of his address was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. The evidence established that the defender lived partly at both addresses during the relevant period, and the lack of clarity regarding the precise questions asked online precluded a finding of deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. Accordingly, the insurer is not entitled to avoid the policy.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_127
Parties
Pursuer: Southern Rock Insurance Company Limited; Defender: Hadar Hafeez
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Declarator (insurance) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
defender assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Motor Insurance, Declarator, Burden of Proof, Title to Sue
Insurance Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Motor Insurance Declarator Burden of Proof Title to Sue

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southern Rock Insurance Company Limited

Pursuer

Hadar Hafeez

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Declarator (insurance) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender deliberately or recklessly misrepresented his address to the insurer when applying for motor insurance
  2. 2 Whether the insurer is entitled to avoid the policy under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 and section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer has title to sue as one of several insurers under the policy

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the defender's representation of his address was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. The evidence established that the defender lived partly at both addresses during the relevant period, and the lack of clarity regarding the precise questions asked online precluded a finding of deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. Accordingly, the insurer is not entitled to avoid the policy.

Court Disposition

defender assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons

Orders

  • Sustain defender's third and sixth pleas-in-law
  • Assoilzie (absolve) the defender from the conclusions of the summons