Report comment

As the judgment points out, the insurer couldn't be certain that the Claimant was exaggerating. Their expert couldn't swear to it. It was only later they got the evidence.

In any bog-standard misrep case you could do something with the contract if it turns out your caveat emptoring was on the wrong side - and you couldn't find out until after the contract.

The upshot is we all have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover a fraudster's pension. He has got more through lying than the average person would earn in half a decade.

Of course it's chickenfeed to Underhill.