View more on these topics

Peter Hamilton: When lying to insurers is allowed


About 18 months ago I wrote about how an insurance claim, valid in every respect, can be rejected if the insured has sought to embellish the facts with a lie in the course of making the claim. Such fraud has become known as a fraudulent device.

I illustrated the point by reference to a Court of Appeal decision in a case called Versloot Dredging vs HDI Gerling Versicherung, in which the court had upheld the rule on fraudulent devices for two main reasons.

First, it shared the same basis as the rule relating to fraudulent claims generally, which is the obligation owed by the insured of the utmost good faith.

Secondly, it shared the same public policy justification, namely the deterrence of dishonesty, where total honesty is essential because the insured knows all the facts and the insurance company needs to be able to rely on its insured.

In an earlier House of Lords case, Lord Hobhouse said: “The fraudulent insured must not be allowed to think, ‘If the fraud is successful, then I will gain; if it is unsuccessful, I will lose nothing.’”

And in yet another case, Lord Justice Millett said the rule was “necessary and salutary” to counter the “widespread belief that insurance companies are fair game and that defrauding them is not morally reprehensible”.

The reason for returning to this subject is that in July, the Supreme Court heard a further appeal in the Versloot case and has modified the rule on fraudulent devices in favour of the insured.

A small cargo ship was loading scrap metal in a port in Lithuania in the middle of winter. It was freezing cold. In order to open the hatch covers, the crew used an emergency fire pump to blast away ice from the covers before opening them. Afterwards, they failed to drain the seawater from the pump or to close the sea inlet valve to it. The water in the pumping system froze and damaged it.

The result was that after the ship left port, seawater entered the ship. Because of a past failure of contractors to seal the engine room bulkheads securely, the seawater flooded the engine room and destroyed the engine. The engine was replaced at a cost of over €3m.

The subsequent claim by the owners under their insurance contract was in all respects a good one and should have succeeded but for what the owners’ manager had said to the underwriters in the course of making the claim.

He recklessly made the untrue statement that the master and/or the crew had reported that the bilge alarm was heard by the crew some nine hours before the time they had in fact heard it, but had not investigated it because it appeared to be caused by the rolling of the ship in heavy seas.

The aim of the statement was to indicate fault on the part of the crew and not on the part of the owners. That was a fraudulent device.

The general rule on fraudulent claims is simple. The insurer is not liable to pay them. That is clear if the fraud consists of making a claim for a loss that the insured knows to be non-existent or exaggerated.

But what should the rule be if the loss is genuine and not exaggerated, but the claimant has told a lie to improve his chances of the claim being met or to speed up the claims process? In the Versloot case, the lie was irrelevant to the merits of the claim. Lord Sumption summed up the view of  most of the justices when he said:

“…although a lie uttered in support of a claim need not have any adverse impact on the insurer, I consider that it must at least go to the recoverability of the claim on the true facts. By that test, the fraudulent claims rule applies to a wholly fabricated claim. It applies to an exaggerated claim. It applies even to the genuine part of an exaggerated claim if the whole is to be regarded as a single claim, as it must be. But it does not apply to a lie which the true facts, once admitted or ascertained, show to have been immaterial to the insured’s right to recover… The extension of the fraudulent claims rule to lies which are found to be irrelevant to the recoverability of the claim is a step too far. It is disproportionately harsh to the insured and goes further than any legitimate commercial interest of the insurer can justify… In my opinion, it is not the law.”

The appeal was allowed and the insured recovered its loss from the insurer. Thus, if the collateral lie is shown to have been immaterial to the insured’s right to recover or was not relevant to the merits of the claim, the collateral lie should be disregarded and not operate to deprive the insured of what was otherwise a valid claim.

Peter Hamilton is a barrister specialising in financial services at 4 Pump Court and co-founder of 



Failed network Financial Ltd faces £90k in claims

Bankrupt advice network Financial Ltd is facing £90,000 in claims that are being handled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The company’s liquidators Moore Stephens published documents on Companies House that show two claims were made against Financial Ltd to 4 July 2016 with the FSCS listed as the contact address. The first claim is […]


Capita settles Connaught claims for £18.5m

Capita has settled a claim brought against it as a former operator of the Connaught Income Series 1 Fund. The firm’s half-year results, published today, show it paid £18.5m. It operated the fund – which was suspended in March 2012 – until September 2009. The FCA is conducting a review into Capita and another firm’s […]


Aviva faces court claim over unpaid commission

An adviser has issued a County Court Summons against Aviva over commission from a Friends Life personal pension he claims is owed to him. Barrett Financial Solutions managing director Kim Barrett is taking the provider to the small claims court because he is owed £415 in commission. He is also claiming for time spent trying […]

Three stocks due a Brexit boost

By Mark Martin & Holly Cassell, Neptune Mark Martin and Holly Cassell highlight three high-conviction holdings in the Neptune UK Mid Cap Fund that they believe are well positioned to benefit from Brexit. Read more Important information Investment risks Neptune funds may have a high historic volatility rating and past performance is not a guide […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. VictI'm of dodgy claims 12th September 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Isn’t it about time FOS screened for fraudulent claims instead of ignoring fraudulent claims

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm