header-logo header-logo

23 April 2010
Issue: 7414 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insurance

Jones v Environcom Ltd and another. MS PLC t/a Miles Smith Insurance Brokers, third party, [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 76 (Apr)

A broker had to take reasonable steps to ensure that a proposed policy was suitable for the insured’s needs.

By definition a policy which was voidable for non-disclosure was not suitable. In order to ensure a policy was suitable, a broker had an obligation to advise the insured of the duty to disclose all material circumstances and the consequences of not doing so, he had to indicate the sort of matters which ought to be disclosed as being material and had to take reasonable care to elicit matters which ought to be disclosed but which the insured might not think necessary to mention. In order to discharge the duty to disclose, it was not sufficient to rely upon written standard form explanations and warnings annexed to proposals or policy documents. The broker had to satisfy himself that the position was in fact understood by the insured and that would usually require a specific oral

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll