LM-2024-000066 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Comm)

Two principal limbs of Zurich’s defence to this claim are relevant to the present application. The first is that the claimants made a deliberate, or reckless – effectively a fraudulent – qualifying misrepresentation for the purposes of CIDRA, without which Zurich would not have entered into the contract of home insurance. The second is that Zurich is entitled to rely upon a policy exclusion in relation to reinstatement costs following the fire that engulfed the claimants’ home. Zurich raises a number of further, and discrete, defences; but these are quite separate, and largely relate to Mr Bellhouse’s conduct after the fire.

As to the first of these two limbs, the misrepresentation defence is founded upon the statement of insurance (SOI) that formed part of the policy documentation. One of the questions asked about the property was:

Zurich pleads that that was a misrepresentation; and that the claimants either knew that it was untrue, or did not care whether or not it was untrue. In May 2022, the property was likely to undergo contract works within the next 12 months. The claimants knew this, as they intended to have contract works carried out within the next 12 months.

The SOI clearly states that:

As to the second limb, the buildings cover contains a policy exclusion in respect of any works to the home (described as ‘contract works’) in the following terms: