![]() ![]() These clauses (sometimes also called innocent non-disclosure or avoidance waiver clauses) seek to limit the rights of an insurer to avoid a policy for non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and in this case the pertinent section of the clause read as follows :. In common with many other professional indemnity policies, these policies both had a UND (unintentional non-disclosure) clause. The question was whether this was an innocent misrepresentation. The court found that as a matter of fact this was true and there had been a misrepresentation. CLS had stated in the risk profile documents, which were generated by Markel prior to each policy renewal, that they had not undertaken commercial valuation work for sub-prime lenders, when in fact they had. Markel argued that CLS were guilty of misrepresentation and non-disclosure. Using rights conferred by Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, AF sought to recover the two judgement sums from Markel by stepping into the insolvent surveyor’s shoes and challenging Markel’s right to avoid the two insurance contracts. By now it was 2016 and CLS was in liquidation. After an investigation, Markel sought to avoid the policies (the relevant ones being 20) thereby denying any liability under them because they were void and of no effect. CLS had had professional indemnity insurance cover with the defendant company Markel since 2003 and notified Markel of these claims. ![]() ![]() When it became clear that the properties had been negligently overvalued, AF made claims against CLS and obtained two default judgements against them with a combined value of over £13m. AF relied on the valuations to make loans. The Claimant (‘ AF’), an agricultural bridging finance lender, had instructed Colin Lilley Surveying Ltd (‘ CLS’) to value 11 agricultural properties bought between 20. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |