Abstract:
As shown by the author in an earlier case note, (Church ‘Jerrier v
Outsurance Insurance Company Ltd The duty to disclose: An ongoing
problem?’ 2013 De Jure 859), the case of Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance
Company Ltd (2013 JDR 0562 (KZP) (Jerrier a quo)) highlights the fact that
the duty to disclose is still problematic. A concern highlighted in the note,
was the fact, as a result of this decision, that short term insurers believed
the judgment to mean that consumers are obliged to report to their
insurers every minor incident, such as driving through a pothole or a
scratch on their car, even where they elect not to lodge a claim for the
resultant damage – failing which, their insurance claims might be
rejected. This interpretation, in the opinion of the author was incorrect
(an opinion now vindicated by the court of appeal).
