The claimant insurer sought a declaration that it had validly
avoided a contractors' combined liability policy on the ground
of non-disclosure of material information. Much of the case turns
on the particular facts, but a few points mentioned by the judge
are of more general interest.
The judge said that she was able to reach conclusions on
materiality based on common sense, rather than having to resort to
expert evidence (which, in any event, supported her conclusions).
She pointed out that the "central flaw" in the
insured's argument was that it overlooked the objective nature
of the test for materiality: "[The insured's] own opinion
of the significance or otherwise of the earth settlement and the
road void does not determine materiality, though any subjective
concern on its part would be relevant. An absence of subjective
concern because, for example, [the insured] (and others) had formed
the (preliminary) view that [the insured's] tunnelling was not
the cause of
