DHAMI V LLOYDS TSB GENERAL INSURANCE LTD
9TH DECEMBER 2009
This claim was brought by Mr and Mrs Dhami (the appellant) against their insurance company, Lloyds TSB (the respondent).
The appellants had taken out a building and contents policy relating to the property with the respondent on 28 October 1999, and the policy was renewed each October. As part of the application or the policy, the appellants were asked whether anyone normally living with them had ever been convicted of any criminal offence other than a motoring offence. The answer to that question from the appellants was, at all material times, in the negative.
On 15 March 2004, the property was damaged by fire whilst the appellants were on holiday in India. It was common ground that at the time of the fire, Sukhdev and another of the appellants' sons, Barinder Dhami were occupying the property. It was accepted that Sukhdev had a number of criminal convictions, including assault and motoring offences; some of the offences were spent by the time the policy was initially taken out by the appellants.
The insurers repudiated the household insurance policy by letter of 1 September 2004 on the basis of the failure of the appellants to disclose the criminal convictions of their son Mr. Sukhdev Dhami (Sukhdev) who was “normally living with them.”
The appellant issued proceedings against the respondent for the following:
- the costs of repair and refurbishing of their home at 20 Roxeth Green Avenue (the property) following a fire on 15 March 2004;
- the loss they sustained as a result of a burglary in March 2004 and
- the costs of repair to the garage following a fire to the garage at the property in February 2005, together with a loss of goods and the costs of alternative accommodation.
The total claim amounted to almost £129,000.
At the outset of the hearing, it was decided that the court should deal firstly with the issue of whether or not the respondent was entitled to repudiate the policy.
The appellants' case before the court of first instance was twofold;
1. They said that Sukhdev was not living at the property and
2. They said that in any event they had no knowledge of his criminal record.
The insurance company had, in the court of first instance, presented statements that had been given by both sons to the loss adjustor appointed on the insurer’s behalf. In his statement Sukhdev gave the subject property as his address and said: "I have lived at (the property) on and off for about 20 years apart from when staying with my girlfriend and such".
The court in first instance held that the relevant son Sukhdev did live at the property at all material times and that the appellants were aware of Sukhdev's convictions. The court also held that these convictions were relevant and that the appellants' non-disclosure was material. The Plaintiff’s claim was therefore dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the appellants holding that it was impossible to fault the lower courts decision. The Appellants had also sought to introduce fresh evidence, including documentation that purported to show that Sukhdev was not living in the property at the material time. The submission of this new evidence was refused.