Savash v CIS General Insurance Ltd

An insured must prove that a policy condition relating to occupancy was satisfied. A property may be “unoccupied” because it is insufficiently furnished for full habitation, even if a person has stayed there temporarily. An insurance claim is unenforceable where the insured knowingly or recklessly presents a materially false or exaggerated claim. Fraudulent devices include lies intended to improve the insured’s prospects of recovery. The fraud need not relate to every element of the claim. A principal may be fixed with the consequences of fraudulent conduct by an agent acting within the scope of the agent’s authority.

The claimant sought indemnity under a household insurance policy after an alleged daytime burglary at a residential property. The insurer denied liability, contending that the property was unoccupied, that the claim was materially exaggerated and fraudulent, and that supporting invoices misrepresented expenditure on remedial works.

The court considered the policy definition of “Unoccupied”, the evidence concerning occupation and furnishing, the occurrence and consequences of the burglary, the claimed losses, and whether the claimant was responsible for fraudulent conduct by his father acting on his behalf.

1. Occupancy. The claimant bore the burden of establishing that the property was not “Unoccupied” within the policy definition. Temporary stays and contemporary changes of address did not establish continuous occupation. The evidence showed that no one had lived at the property for 60 days before the burglary and that it was insufficiently furnished for full habitation. The policy exclusion therefore applied.
2. Burglary and loss. A burglary and some resulting water damage were accepted on the balance of probabilities. The court rejected much of the alleged stolen property and was not satisfied that the extensive physical damage had been caused by the burglars. The evidence did not establish the claimed expenditure or the recoverability of substantial elements of the building and contents claims.
3. Fraud. Applying the principles in Re H and Others (Minors), The Ocean Frost, Derry v Peek, Agapitos v Agnew and The Star Sea, the court found that the claim had been fraudulently and fraudulently exaggerated. The claimant knowingly or recklessly presented claims for goods not stolen, inflated replacement and repair costs, and misleading invoices. The fraudulent conduct was material and rendered the claim unenforceable.
4. Agency. The claimant authorised his father to organise remedial works and provide information for the insurance claim. The father materially exaggerated the claim within that authority. Applying Direct Line v Khan, the claimant was fixed with the consequences of that fraud.
5. The claim was dismissed. The court made no criticism of the claimant’s solicitors or counsel.

First-instance judgment. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.