With regards to the Supreme Court ruling regarding collateral lies on insurance claims, I still remember a CI claim a few years back that was (quite rightly) rejected on the grounds of flagrant non-disclosure on the application form of an existing condition (the one specifically claimed for).
The application form did, of course, include appropriate warnings of the potential consequences of non-disclosure. The insured took the insurer (Scot Prov I think it was) to court and the court ruled that the insurer must pay anyway. Such a verdict makes a mockery of our legal system.
Julian Stevens
IFA
Harvest
Bristol
