Duties on placement

Malik v Moneywise Investments plc 1 May 2008, a decision of John Leighton Williams QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, was a straightforward factual dispute as to whether material facts had been passed from the assured to his brokers.

Malik: the facts

The claimant was the publican of ‘Temptations’, a pub in East London. During 2004 the premises, fixtures and fittings were insured by New India, a policy arranged by the defendant brokers, but in advance of the November 2004 renewal that company indicated that it was not prepared to continue to underwrite the risk. This was because there was entertainment at the premises, which had the effect of altering the risk. The brokers approached Norwich Union (NU) and on 23 November wrote to the claimant confirming NU’s quotation and stating that cover was subject to ‘No admission charge being made’. A policy was duly issued, and on 2 December NU sent various insurance documents to the defendants, subsequently passed to the claimant, including a ‘Statement of Fact’. This provided that it was ‘ … an important document and You must read it in full’ to check for accuracy, failing which the policy might be affected. The Statement of Fact contained the statement: ‘You do not make any admission charge for entertainment.’