Our notes on the earlier decisions in this matter can be found here (Court of Appeal) and here (first instance).

The case involved a trade credit insurance contract. The insurer argued that it was entitled to reduce its liability under the contract to nil on the basis of misrepresentations by the insured. The court agreed. The insured’s evidence of the additional information it would have provided (had proper disclosure been made) was insufficient to address the concerns raised by the insurer about payment problems with one of the insured’s debtors. The court noted that, in the circumstances, the insurer was not required to engage in an “ever-branching maze of hypothetical inquiry and response” to demonstrate the further inquiries it would have made, and any information it would have obtained, after receiving the insured’s initial response.

There was no evidence or submissions as to whether an alternative policy may have been issued, and if so, what the terms of such a policy would likely have been. The court concluded that, if the insured had provided truthful and complete answers to the proposal, the insurer would not have issued the policy.

The decision can be accessed here.