SCHOOLMAN v. HALL.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 139

COURT OF APPEAL.

Before Lord Justice Cohen, Lord Justice Asquith and Lord Justice Birkett.

Jewellery insurance - Non-disclosure - Waiver - Proposal form - Limited nature of questions-"It is agreed that this form shall be the basis of the contract"-Duty of full disclosure of material facts-Jewellers' Block Policy issued by defendant underwriter to plaintiff after he had completed proposal form-Questions in proposal form restricted to business matters within the previous five years, those relating to trading character being unlimited in time-Provision in proposal form that "this form shall be the basis of the contract should policy be issued"-Burglary claim under policy-Loss admitted to be genuine -Claim under policy rejected by defendant on ground that plaintiff had failed to disclose that he had a criminal record some years before the policy was issued-Trial before Ormerod, J., and jury-Plea by plaintiff that having regard to the terms of the proposal form defendant had waived his right to full disclosure-Ruling by learned Judge that there was no evidence of waiver to be put to the jury-Finding by jury that criminal record was a material fact which should have been disclosed - Judgment entered for defendant - Appeal by plaintiff - Alleged misdirection as to meaning and effect of proposal form-Whether limiting duty of full disclosure.