| So whilst the insurer should ask sensible questions | | | | have been expected to know that it was material. |
| it is under UK law still incumbent of the insured to | | | | The courts however considered that an insured |
| advise a material fact. A material fact is basically | | | | whose doctor had sent him to the hospital for a |
| any fact which may make an insurer charge | | | | kidney problem should have advised his insurer |
| more or less premium or a fact which may make | | | | even if the insured was not aware how serious |
| the insurer decline or accept the risk or only take | | | | the situation might have been at the time. The |
| the risk subject to additional conditions. | | | | question of materiality was not based on the |
| As an insured you can not hide a material fact | | | | insured’s ability to judge if the fact was |
| simply because the insurer did not ask the right | | | | material but on that of the life insurance insurer |
| question. So initially the onus is on you to provide | | | | who had access to professional advice. In this |
| all relevant information. However the law is also | | | | case the insured knew of the fact and we |
| there to protect you as well. | | | | assume also considered that it might be material, |
| There have been several agreements between | | | | but decided to use his judgment on whether or |
| the major life insurance insurers and governing | | | | not it was material. |
| bodies and trade associations whereby insurers | | | | Another court case determined that the |
| are required to point out your obligations to | | | | information is based on the insured’s |
| advise material facts. Insurers are expected to | | | | knowledge and does not require him to make |
| ask questions about those matters which have | | | | extensive investigation before answering the |
| commonly proved to be material. Generally courts | | | | question. The duty of disclosure continues until the |
| would not expect you to disclose a fact which on | | | | contract of insurance is concluded. So information |
| the face of it would not be considered material on | | | | that you learn about whilst the proposal form is |
| its own. | | | | still being considered should be advised. So as a |
| There was a case where a person was having | | | | general rule advise all details which could be |
| occasional headaches but thought they were just | | | | material. It is not your job to decide what might |
| that and did not attribute anything else to the | | | | or might not be material. If you learn of |
| matter. Now an experienced doctor may consider | | | | something late in the day before the contract is |
| the headaches as perhaps the possible on set of | | | | concluded then still advise it. If you do not then |
| symptoms of a more serious nature and | | | | the risk is that the policy may not be valid and if |
| therefore request further investigation. But in that | | | | a claim was presented it may not get paid. |
| particular case the court held that the insured had | | | | This article does not represent financial |
| no reason to believe the worse. He had no reason | | | | advice’ as each persons individual |
| to believe that these headaches might be a | | | | requirements will be unique to their needs. If there |
| material fact instead he thought that they were | | | | is something in the article which you which to rely |
| just an occasional headache. The court held that a | | | | on then please check those details with any |
| reasonable man would not be expected to know | | | | person from whom you purchase a term life |
| that the occasional headache might be material. | | | | policy at the time of purchase. |
| So the insured knew of the fact but would not | | | | |