Owners of a tenanted south Auckland property failed in their fire insurance claim because of a material non-disclosure when taking out the policy, failing to tell Tower Insurance the house had been partitioned into two separate tenancies occupied by two separate families.
A Papatoetoe rental owned by Saijad Ali Maqbool and his fatherwas severely damaged in 2013 following a kitchen fire. Tower refused to pay.
The general rule with insurance law is that those seeking cover must disclose all relevant information material to the risk. Only then, can insurers determine the risk and set the premium. The questions asked in an insurance proposal form are not the full extent of information required; any other relevant information must be disclosed. Policies can be cancelled following any material non-disclosure.
This rule has caused much anger and heartbreak amongst property owners; only when a claim is made does an insurer carry out due diligence on the risk and consider voiding the policy – often for reasons which a typical property owner would never consider relevant to an assessment of the risk. The high water mark for insurance companies is a century-old legal case in which an English judge ruled an insurance contract could be cancelled after a claim was made because the insured failed to disclose he was not born in England.
Following the Papatoetoe house fire, Justice Lang ruled the owners did not disclose all material information. The house had been divided into two residential units with a partitioned hallway and creation of a separate kitchen. The two areas were separately tenanted, occupied by two different families. One of the tenants had arranged for the work to be done, with the consent of the property owner.
There was evidence from the insurance industry that unconsented property alterations increase claim costs. Here, the addition of a second kitchen and the lack of proper fire proofing meant a higher risk of fire and the likelihood of greater damage resulting from any fire.
Alterations to the property should have been disclosed to Tower at the very latest when the annual fire policy came up for renewal, Justice Lang said.
Saijad v. Tower Insurance Ltd – High Court (28.03.23)
23.039