Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
English Insurance Law
Margaret Hemsworth *
110. Aviva Insurance Ltd v Brown1
Property insurance—fraudulent claim—alternative accommodation costs—insurer’s entitlement to recover all sums paid
Aviva sought recovery of all sums paid to its insured on the basis that part of the claim had been fraudulent. The claim had arisen on subsidence damage and necessary repair work to the insured’s residential property. The total cost of repair was in the region of £180,000, to which the insured added a claim for alternative accommodation costs of some £58,000. The insurer contended that this latter sum was fraudulent in that the insured had falsely represented that the alternative accommodation was owned by a third party and that the proposed letting would be at arm’s length when in reality the insured owned the property; the insured was thus not liable for any rental payments. The insurer relied on common law principles and in addition an express condition in the policy of insurance to the effect that it “will not pay any claim which is in any respect fraudulent”. The specific allegations of fraud were that the insured had falsely represented that two alternative properties available for lease (No 38 Lyonsdown Avenue, and No 15 Friern Barnet Lane) were owned by third parties when in fact the insured was the owner of both.
Decision: The insurer was entitled to recover all sums paid: the allegation of fraud in relation to No 38 Lyonsdown Avenue was established. The similar allegation made in relation to No 15 Friern Barnet Lane failed.
Held: (1) The insured’s evidence that he genuinely believed he had transferred the property (No 38 Lyonsdown Avenue) to a trust was not credible, and the insured knew this was not honest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. The fact that the claim in relation to this specific property had not been actively pursued (because the insured’s wife did not wish to move into it) was irrelevant as a matter of law. The deceit was a material or substantial fraud and met the definition to be found in Derry v Peek,2 and the more recent dicta in Agapitos v Agnew.
3 That the insured believed he had been badly treated by the insurer through many years of delayed settlement of his claim was irrelevant. The insurer had met the onerous burden of proof to a high degree of probability required in a claim based on fraud; the claims had been dishonestly made.4
* Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Plymouth.
1. [2011] EWHC 362 (QB) (QB: Eder J).
2. (1889) 14 AC 337.
3. [2002] EWCA Civ 247; [2003] QB 556.
4. Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 AC 164; [2002] 2 All ER 377; AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm)
[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW YEARBOOK
72