In Mutual Strength Ltd v Starr Underwriting Brokers Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 590 (TCC), the Technological innovation and Development Courtroom has held that the phrases “deliberate … non-disclosure” must entail dishonesty. A company’s honest but mistaken belief that some thing will need not be disclosed was not enough to enable insurers to stay clear of the policy for non-disclosure.

Mutual Strength Ltd (MEL) owned and operated the Moyle Interconnector, which provided an undersea backlink in between the electrical energy methods of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The defendant insurers insured the interconnector beneath an insurance plan agreement place in put all over 1 December 2009. In 2011, there ended up two failures of the insulation around a conductor, top to a decline of ability. As a final result of these failures, MEL submitted a assert under its insurance coverage.

The defendant insurers would not agree to indemnify MEL on the basis that particular details with regards to insulation of cables had not been disclosed. The insurers argued the information was not disclosed to them due to the genuine but mistaken perception that it did not will need to be disclosed.

Clause 6 of the insurance coverage plan dealt with non-disclosure, misrepresentation and breach. It stated that the insurance policy policy could only be avoided if there was “deliberate or fraudulent non-disclosure”.

The difficulty between the events was whether or not the reference to “deliberate…non-disclosure” in the policy intended the agreement was avoidable in the instances. The insurers alleged deliberate non-disclosure on the portion of MEL, and claimed that an straightforward but mistaken selection not to disclose some thing entitled them to stay away from the agreement of insurance coverage. MEL’s case was that the contract was only avoidable if the non-disclosure included an element of dishonesty. 

In prior conditions, it experienced been held that the use of “deliberate” in the context of breach or default, meant intentional. The Courtroom said it was not feasible logically to distinguish involving deliberate breach and deliberate non-disclosure. Each deliberate breach and deliberate non-disclosure associated an component of culpability. Last but not least, the Court considered carry out could be deliberate and dishonest with no remaining fraudulent.

Thinking about the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “deliberate” and authority on the use of “deliberate” in other contexts, the Court held that the terms “deliberate or fraudulent non-disclosure” prompt a circumstance wherever the insured deliberately failed to disclose some thing they knew they ought to disclose. This entailed an element of dishonesty.

Accordingly, MEL’s selection not to disclose a thing as a final result of an truthful but mistaken belief that it will need not be disclosed was not adequate to enable the defendant insurers to avoid the coverage.

By James Crabtree, with thanks to Nihara McCormack.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here