The High Court's decision in R&R Development Ltd v AXA Insurance UK Plc  EWHC 2424 (Ch) concerned the issue of whether ambiguous questions in a proposal form for a contract of insurance could be construed by following the Contra Proferentem principle without the need for the court to decide upon the correct interpretation of the questions.
A policy condition provided that in the event of misrepresentation, misdescription or non disclosure by the insured of any material fact, the policy would become voidable. One question in the proposal form asked, "have you or any partners or directors either personally or in connection with any business in which they have been involved ever been declared bankrupt or are the subject of any bankruptcy proceedings or any voluntary or mandatory insolvency", to which the insured answered no. It was alleged that the insured had not disclosed a director's previous involvement in companies which were subject to liquidation proceedings and in a company which had been in administration during the policy period. By not doing so, the insured had made a misrepresentation and was therefore not entitled to claim under the policy.
The insured argued that the questions on the proposal form were ambiguous and that when an ambiguous question is put to an insured, the court does not have to decide upon the true construction of the question but only whether the answer was correct using a reasonable interpretation of the question.
The Court found for the insured. Even without applying the Contra Proferentem principle, the questions on plain reading related only to the insured company and to its directors in respect of their personal affairs. If the question was ambiguous, and the Contra Proferentem principle applied, the insured's interpretation was a reasonable one. On either basis, the insured's answer was correct.