Not upheld: breach of duty of fair presentation of risk under Insurance Act 2015; policy voidance; non-disclosure of material fact complaint against The New India Assurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6272862 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. breach of duty of fair presentation of risk under Insurance Act 2015; policy voidance; non-disclosure of material fact complaint against The New India Assurance Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6272862 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The New India Assurance Company Limited |
| Product | commercial insurance |
| Claim type | breach of duty of fair presentation of risk under Insurance Act 2015; policy voidance; non-disclosure of material fact |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No award made against New India. The ombudsman found New India's offer to waive recovery of the difference between claims paid (£263,000) and premiums (£110,131.28) across all five policies (approximately £153,000) to be reasonable. B should contact New India directly if it wishes to accept this settlement offer, which remains available despite the original time limit. |
Summary
B, a limited company with four linked companies insured with New India since 2019, complained about New India's refusal to renew policies and decision to void all policies from 2019 on the grounds that B failed to disclose that its directors had been involved in a company that entered liquidation in 2009. B argued the proposal form question about 'liquidation administration' was unclear and that it had answered correctly. The ombudsman found the question was sufficiently clear when read as a whole to require disclosure of any insolvency involving the directors' previous businesses. New India provided reliable evidence it would not have offered cover if aware of the insolvency history, constituting a qualifying breach under the Insurance Act 2015. The ombudsman found the breach was careless rather than deliberate and considered New India's offer to waive recovery of approximately £153,000 (the difference between £263,000 in claims paid and £110,131.28 in premiums across all policies) to be reasonable, declining to uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that despite the absence of a comma in the proposal form, the question was sufficiently clear when read as a whole to require disclosure of any insolvency involving the directors' previous businesses. The question asked about any liquidation (not limited to compulsory liquidation) and current voluntary insolvency procedures. B's assertion that it answered correctly was rejected. The ombudsman distinguished the Ristorante case on the basis of different question wording. New India provided reliable evidence it would not have offered the policy if it had known of the insolvency. The breach was careless rather than deliberate or reckless, making it a qualifying breach under the Insurance Act 2015. New India's offer to waive recovery of approximately £153,000 was considered reasonable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The New India Assurance Company Limited, all decisions | 71 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website