May 17, 2019
Young v Royal and Sun Alliance PLC
The Court of Session found that an insurer had not waived disclosure under the Insurance Act 2015 (“the Act”). The case is the first to be decided under the Act.
A fire occurred at Mr Young’s property (“the Property”) causing extensive damage. Mr Young then claimed an indemnity from his insurers, Royal and Sun Alliance PLC (“RSA”).
RSA declined Mr Young’s claim on the basis that he had failed to disclose material information pursuant to section 3(1) of the Act. Mr Young denied making a material non-disclosure, and, in any event, argued that RSA had waived disclosure of that information, pursuant to section 3(5)(e) of the Act.
The Market Presentation
Mr Young’s insurance was arranged by his broker by way of a 20-page Market Presentation (“the Presentation”). The Presentation was completed using the broker’s software, and identified the insured as Mr Young and Kaim Park Investments Ltd (“Kaim”).
The “Details” section of the Presentation contained the following passage, which the judge referred to as the “Moral Hazard Declaration”:
“Select any of the following that apply to any proposer, director or partner of the Trade or Business or its Subsidiary Companies if they have ever, either personally or in any business capacity:”
The Moral Hazard Declaration required the proposer to select from seven options in a drop-down menu. The answer selected was “None”.
RSA emailed the broker on 24 April 2017 in response to the Presentation (“the Email”). The Email contained a heading titled “Subjectivity”, and stated as follows:
“Insured has never
Been declared bankrupt or insolvent
Had a liquidator appointed
The Parties’ positions
RSA asserted that Mr Young failed to disclose that he had been a director of four insolvent companies (“the Insolvency Information”), and, had he done so, it would not have entered into the insurance “on any terms”.
Mr Young, in response, argued that the Presentation contained no misrepresentation, as neither he, Kaim, nor any director of Kaim had ever been insolvent. Further, by referring to “the insured” in the Email, Mr Young said that RSA had waived any entitlement to disclosure of prior insolvencies or bankruptcies experienced by anyone other than the insured themselves.
RSA denied that it had waived disclosure of the Insolvency Information, as the Email did not set out any questions for Mr Young to respond to. As a result, Mr Young’s failure to disclose the Insolvency Information was unconnected to the Email. Further, RSA said that it had no knowledge of Mr Young’s prior breach of the duty of fair presentation, and, since there must be knowledge of the right before it can be waived, there had been no waiver here.
The decision – was there a waiver?
The Judge firstly referred to the pre-Act case law, which established that an assured seeking to establish waiver would need to show a “clear case” (Doheny v New India Assurance Co Ltd  Lloyd’s Rep I.R. 251). This could be done in one of two ways: (1) where an insured submitted information which contained something which would prompt a reasonably careful insurer to make further enquiries, but the insurer fails to do so; and (2) where an insurer asks a “limited” question such that a reasonable person would be justified in thinking that the insurer had no interest in knowing information falling outside the scope of the question. This case concerned the latter.
In considering the issue, the Judge noted that the term “any business capacity” was capable of including other entities with which the insured was involved. The difficulty for RSA, however, was that the Moral Hazard Declaration was incomplete; although RSA had seen the answer of “None”, it did not know what the “None” referred to.
The Judge held that the Email was aimed at clarifying Mr Young’s answer to the Moral Hazard Declaration, which it achieved by stipulating the specific moral hazards that needed to be addressed. Further, the judge held that the reference to “the insured” in the Email was not limited to Mr Young and Kaim, but also covered the longer formulation contained in the Moral Hazard Declaration. So, read in this context, the judge was satisfied that no reasonable reader would have understood the Email as waiving the part of the Moral Hazard Declaration relating to “any business capacity” in which Mr Young might have acted. Accordingly, the judge held that there was no waiver.
A number of themes arise in the judgment which are of relevance to policyholders and brokers.
Firstly, the judgment illustrates the potential drawbacks of using bespoke software to place insurance. Here, it was to Mr Young’s detriment that RSA were not using the same software as the broker, the result being that RSA were unable to determine the full extent of what was being disclosed, absent further information being provided.
The judgment also demonstrates that formulations such as “any business capacity”, may, in some circumstances, be broad enough to extend to any company with which an individual insured was involved. However, it is unclear whether that same analysis would apply where insurance is taken out by a business only.
Finally, although the judgment sheds light on what is required to establish waiver, it did not consider issues of materiality or inducement, and so the question of whether RSA can make good their assertion that it would not have written the risk “on any terms” remains to be decided.
Alex Rosenfield is a senior associate at Fenchurch Law.
Court of Appeal plunges into notification issues
In a Judgment handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time in over ten years issues regarding the effect of a notification of a “circumstance” to a professional indemnity policy: Euro Pools plc v RSA  EWCA Civ 808 .
The commercial background to the dispute was unusual. Typically, a policyholder will argue that its notification was wide in scope, so that in due course its notification will “catch” any ensuing claims. By contrast, the insurer to whom the notification was made will typically argue that the scope of the notification was narrow (or, sometimes, wholly ineffective), so that it is in a position to resist indemnifying the policyholder for the later claim(s).
Here the position was reversed. The insurer (RSA) argued that the notification in question was sufficiently wide to catch the later claims; and the policyholder argued that its original notification was very narrow, so that accordingly the claims in question could be said to arise from the (unquestionably wider) notification which it had made to its successive policy.
The reason for this apparent role reversal was the simple fact that the indemnity limit under the original policy (which was on an aggregate basis, not “per claim”) was exhausted, so that the policyholder needed to establish that the later policy (also written, as it happens, by RSA) would respond.
Euro Pools plc (“Euro Pools”) designed and installed swimming pools. One particular feature which it offered was the inclusion of vertical “booms”, which could be raised and lowered in order to compartmentalise the pool.
Initially, the booms were powered by an air drive system, whereby air would be pumped into and out of stainless steel tanks housed within the booms.
In February 2007, Euro Pools notified its 2006/07 policy (“the First Policy”) that the booms weren’t working. This was, it said, because of a perceived problem with the stainless-steel tanks. Euro Pools proposed an inexpensive solution whereby inflatable bags would be used instead of the steel tanks.
In June 2007, just before expiry of the First Policy, Euro Pools supplemented its original notification by informing RSA that, while it was continuing to replace the tanks with inflatable bags, the cost of which it expected would fall within its excess, it nevertheless wished “to ensure the matter [was] logged on a precautionary basis should there be any future problems”. 
Thereafter, during the course of its 2007/08 policy (“the Second Policy”, also written, as I have said, by RSA), it became apparent to Euro Pools that the inflatable bags were no more successful than the stainless steels tanks had been, and that the air drive system would need to be replaced with a hydraulic system – which would be far more expensive. Indeed, it appears that, with a view to preventing its customers from making claims against it, ultimately Euro Pools spent about £2m replacing the air drive system with a hydraulic system.
By this time, the limit under the First Policy was exhausted. The issue was therefore whether the £2m of mitigation costs had been spent in avoiding putative claims which, had they been made, would have arisen out of the circumstance(s) notified to the First Policy.
The Court of Appeal’s Judgment
Euro Pools argued that its notifications in February and June 2007 to the First Policy had been confined to a problem with the stainless-steel tanks. Relying on the principle that one cannot notify a circumstance of which one is not aware, Euro Pools submitted that when notifying the First Policy it had not been aware of a possible problem with the inflatable bags, let alone with any inherent defect in the air drive system generally, and thus could not have been notifying either of those as a “circumstance”.
That argument was accepted at first instance by Moulder J, who thus held, to RSA’s disappointment, that the Second Policy did respond. However, some commentators had criticised this decision on the basis that the Judge had confused the ability to notify a problem (here, that that the booms were not working) with the cause of that problem. As earlier cases such as Kidsons  and Kajima had had held, it is open to a policyholder to make a “hornets’ nest” notification – ie, a general notification of a problem, even where the cause of the problem and/or its potential consequences are not yet known.
The Court of Appeal (Hamblen LJ, Males LJ, and Dame Elizabeth Gloster) largely echoed those criticisms, and held that the notification to the First Policy had not been confined to the failure of the steel tanks and the consequential need to replace them with inflatable bags. Instead, the Court of Appeal agreed with RSA that the circumstances notified in February 2007 were that “multiple failures had taken place in relation to the [booms] and….[Euro Pools] was not sure what was causing the failures” and that the circumstances notified in June 2007 were that “in the face of continuing boom failures, Euro Pools had developed a potential solution involving the use of inflatable bags, but that it nevertheless wished to make a notification in case of ‘any future problems’ giving rise to possible third party Claims”.
“In other words,” said the Court of Appeal, “Euro Pools appreciated that it might not have got to the bottom of the problem in the sense of understanding what the root cause of the booms’ failure was. Thus, although Euro Pools hoped that it could make the boom design work by using bags in place of tanks, and that solution would fall within the deductible, it nonetheless wanted to make a general precautionary notification.”
In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal has re-stated the orthodox approach, as set out in previous cases such as Kidsons, Kajima and McManus . Although the Court of Appeal’s decision was undoubtedly disappointing to this particular policyholder, in the long run its approach is likely to be beneficial to policyholders since it will assist them when, as is often the case, they wish to make a precautionary notification of a problem when the cause of that problem and/or its potential consequences are as yet unknown.
 The full Judgement is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/808.html
 This request seems to have been prompted by a realisation on the part of Euro Pools’ broker that, owing to an administrative error, RSA had not opened a claims file following the original notification in February 2007.
 HLB Kidsons (a firm) v Lloyd’s Underwriters  Lloyd’s Rep IR 237.
 Kajima UK Engineering Limited v The Underwriter Insurance Company Limited EWHC 83.
 McManus v European Risk Insurance Co  Lloyd’s Rep IR 533.
Jonathan Corman is a partner at Fenchurch Law.