Was the Policy Consumer or Commercial?
The applicable legal framework matters. A consumer answering insurer questions is not assessed in exactly the same way as a business presenting a commercial insurance risk.
Non-disclosure or misrepresentation alleged?
Has Your Insurance Claim Been Rejected for Non-Disclosure?
An insurer should do more than identify an inaccurate or incomplete answer. The questions asked, the care taken, the underwriting evidence and the remedy applied may all matter. We review the complete decision before explaining the strongest available challenge route.
Non-Disclosure Dispute Specialists
FCA Regulated
Litigation & Direct Access Barristers
Free Initial Claim Review
Understanding the allegation
A Missing or Incorrect Answer Is Not the End of the Analysis
Non-disclosure and misrepresentation disputes often arise only after a claim is made. The insurer reviews information supplied when the policy began or was renewed and says it would have assessed the risk differently if the position had been known.
The next questions are critical: what duty applied, what was actually asked or required, what did the policyholder know, what would the insurer genuinely have done differently and whether the legal remedy matches the circumstances.
The questions that decide the dispute
How a Non-Disclosure Allegation Should Be Tested
The strength of the insurer’s position depends on more than the existence of information that was not recorded. These are the principal issues we examine.
What Exact Question Was Asked?
We examine the proposal form, comparison-site journey, telephone recording, statement of fact and renewal process rather than relying only on the insurer’s later summary.
Was the Question Clear and Specific?
Ambiguous wording, unclear time periods, undefined terms or inconsistent questions may affect whether the policyholder failed to take reasonable care.
What Answer Was Actually Recorded?
The recorded answer may differ from what was said, selected or understood—particularly where a broker, intermediary, comparison site or telephone sale was involved.
Was Reasonable Care or Fair Presentation Shown?
The policyholder’s knowledge, the way the question was framed, supporting documents and the steps taken to check the information can be important.
What Would the Insurer Have Done Differently?
The insurer should support its position with underwriting evidence showing whether it would have declined cover, charged more or applied different terms.
How Was the Conduct Classified?
The distinction between careless conduct and conduct said to be deliberate or reckless can materially affect the remedies that may be available to the insurer.
Was the Correct Remedy Applied?
Avoiding the policy, changing its terms, reducing the claim proportionately or paying the claim can depend on what the insurer would have done with accurate information.
Testing the insurer’s remedy
The Decision Should Show More Than a Missing Fact
For a consumer misrepresentation to give the insurer a remedy, the insurer generally needs to establish that accurate information would have caused it to act differently. The result may depend on whether it would have refused the risk, charged a different premium or offered cover on different terms.
Commercial disputes require analysis under the duty of fair presentation and the available proportionate remedies. In either context, the underwriting evidence and the route from allegation to outcome should be capable of scrutiny.
No Qualifying Breach EstablishedThe allegation or remedy may not be sustainable on the available evidence.
Different PremiumA proportionate settlement may arise in some consumer cases where a higher premium would have been charged.
Different Policy TermsThe claim may need to be assessed as though the alternative terms had been included.
Cover Would Not Have Been OfferedAvoidance may be argued, subject to the applicable law, classification and premium consequences.
Choosing the right challenge
How a Non-Disclosure Decision May Be Challenged
The correct route depends on the policy, claimant, allegation, underwriting evidence, remedy, value, time limits and stage already reached.
Reconsideration and Formal Complaint
A structured challenge can identify the disputed question, answer, evidence, classification and remedy, and require the insurer to explain what it would have done with accurate information.
Financial Ombudsman Referral
Where the claimant and complaint are eligible, the Financial Ombudsman may consider the relevant law, clarity of the questions, reasonable care, underwriting evidence and whether the outcome was fair.
Litigation and Direct Access Barristers
Higher-value or legally complex disputes may require pre-action work or proceedings. We can help prepare the case and coordinate suitable specialist barrister involvement where appropriate.
Direct/Public Access can allow an authorised barrister to advise, draft and represent without a solicitor. Many barristers do not conduct the day-to-day litigation, so a solicitor or authorised litigator may still be needed in some cases.
A focused initial assessment
How We Review a Non-Disclosure Allegation
The initial review is designed to identify the precise allegation, the evidence supporting it and whether the insurer’s chosen outcome appears open to challenge.
Request My Free Claim ReviewSend the Decision and Application Material
Provide the insurer’s letter, policy documents, statement of fact and any available sales, application or renewal records.
We Identify the Precise Allegation
We separate the alleged information gap from the exact question, recorded answer, classification and legal framework relied upon.
We Test the Underwriting Consequence
We examine whether the insurer has shown what it would have done differently and whether that supports the remedy selected.
We Explain the Options
We outline the strongest apparent route, any further evidence required and what could happen next.
Allegations across different policies
The Type of Insurance Changes the Questions and Evidence
Explore related claim areas or begin a review if your non-disclosure dispute does not fit neatly into one category.
For solicitors and professional advisers
Specialist Input Where Disclosure or Fair Presentation Is Disputed
We work with solicitors, accountants, brokers and other professional advisers who require focused assistance reviewing the application evidence, underwriting consequence and remedy applied.
View Professional Referral Information- Initial allegation and merits analysis
- Application and underwriting evidence review
- Defined scope and clear communication
- Litigation and Direct Access barrister coordination
Common questions
Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation FAQs
These answers provide general guidance. The correct approach depends on the type of policy, questions, evidence, conduct and remedy involved.
What is insurance non-disclosure?
In a consumer context, non-disclosure generally concerns relevant information that was left out when answering questions about the risk. Misrepresentation includes an answer that was incomplete, inaccurate or misleading. Commercial insurance is generally assessed under the separate duty of fair presentation.
Can an insurer reject a claim for non-disclosure?
Potentially, but rejection is not automatically the correct remedy whenever an answer was inaccurate. The insurer may need to establish a qualifying misrepresentation or breach, what it would have done with accurate information and which remedy the applicable law permits.
What if I answered the insurer’s questions honestly?
Honesty is important, but the legal assessment may also consider whether reasonable care was taken. The wording and clarity of the question, the information known, the circumstances and any steps taken to check the answer may all be relevant.
Does the information have to relate to the insurance claim?
Not necessarily. A lack of connection with the loss does not automatically remove every available remedy. The important questions include which legal framework applies, what the insurer would have done with accurate information and what remedy follows from that position.
What if I arranged the policy through a broker or comparison website?
The sales journey should be examined carefully. Relevant evidence may include the questions displayed, selections made, assumptions, statement of fact, broker communications, telephone records and whether the final information was clearly presented for checking.
What underwriting evidence should the insurer provide?
The insurer should be able to support what it says it would have done with accurate information. Depending on the dispute, this may involve underwriting guides, acceptance criteria, rating evidence or evidence of the alternative terms or premium.
Is non-disclosure different for a business policy?
Yes. Non-consumer insurance is generally governed by the Insurance Act 2015 duty of fair presentation rather than the consumer duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. The insured’s knowledge and the presentation of the risk require separate analysis.
Can the Financial Ombudsman review a non-disclosure decision?
Potentially, where the claimant and complaint are eligible. The insurer generally needs the opportunity to investigate the formal complaint first. Applicable referral and time limits should be checked carefully.
Can I instruct a barrister directly about a non-disclosure dispute?
Potentially. A suitably trained and authorised Public/Direct Access barrister may advise, draft documents and represent an individual or business without a solicitor. Not every matter is suitable, and separate litigation support or an authorised litigator may still be required.
Is the initial non-disclosure review free?
Yes. The initial review is free and there is no obligation to proceed. If further work may be appropriate, the proposed scope and pricing will be explained before you decide whether to continue.
Information on this page is general and does not guarantee that a non-disclosure decision will be changed. Each matter depends on its policy type, facts, questions, evidence, classification, eligibility and applicable time limits.