Bellhouse v Zurich: Testing the limits of insurer assumptions under CIDRA

The Bellhouse v Zurich Insurance Plc [2025] EWHC 1461 (Comm) case concerns a fire claim at a domestic property during renovation works, which Zurich denied alleging a qualifying misrepresentation under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA).

The case has already seen an application for strike out and summary judgment in June 2025, and an application for further information under Part 18 in October 2025 and remains very active whilst still in its early stages procedurally.

Whilst there are several discrete issues at play between the parties – including disputed telephone conversations between Mr Bellhouse and his broker and arguments concerning the 'contract works' exclusion clause – the main issue concerns the fundamental approach adopted by Zurich to populating the statement of insurance with assumptions, which the policyholder and its brokers were expected to correct if inaccurate.

The Court summarises the claimants' position on the point in paragraphs 36-40.  According to Zurich, the assumption was based on the fact that the broker will have known they would not bind the risk if works were intended – and yet the broker never mentioned works.

Background

The claimants, Mr and Mrs Bellhouse, are homeowners with home and contents insurance cover with Zurich. During renovation works at the property there was a fire, and the claimants made a claim for an indemnity, which Zurich denied alleging a qualifying misrepresentation relating to renovation works, rendering the policy void.

Critically, it was Zurich who supplied the answer “no” to the contract works question in the statement of insurance (SOI). An underwriter at Zurich and the claimants’ broker had apparently discussed the SOI over the phone, and Zurich’s position is that the broker had not raised any changes to the answers on the SOI when it instructed Zurich to proceed with placing the insurance. The SOI itself emphasised the need to “check these details carefully and let us know immediately of any errors”.

The competing arguments on misrepresentation

The claimants’ position is that Zurich received no express representation from them, but rather Zurich assumed that answer. The claimants also argued that Zurich could not show that it relied on any such representation.

Section 2 of CIDRA abolished the duty of disclosure in consumer insurance contracts and replaced it with a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation, removing the consumer's duty to volunteer information to the insurer. In consumer insurance cases, an insurer cannot seek to avoid the policy based on non-disclosure alone – any right to avoid must be rooted in a misrepresentation, in breach of the insured's duty under CIDRA.

Zurich argued that, by virtue of not correcting the answer "no" in relation to renovations at the property, this constituted "confirmation and endorsement" by the claimant of the answer "no" entered by Zurich on the SOI. When the claimants' broker and Zurich's underwriter spoke on 9 May 2022, with the broker seeking to reduce the premium, the broker did not seek to amend the answer "no" to the contract works question, which Zurich submits secured cover on that basis.

The June 2025 decision

The Court agreed with Zurich that one realistic analysis of these circumstances was that Mr Bellhouse had confirmed, endorsed and adopted the answer "no" to the contract works question. They found that Zurich could maintain an arguable defence that there was a qualifying misrepresentation which was communicated to Zurich and upon which it relied when incepting insurance cover and accordingly the claimants’ application for strike out/summary judgment of this issue failed. Instead, it ordered Zurich to provide improved particulars on its misrepresentation and exclusion clause defences. 

In relation to the misrepresentation defence, the judge ordered Zurich to:

The implications on the wider insurance industry

The approach adopted by Zurich - whereby the insurer populates the statement of insurance with assumed answers which the policyholder and broker are expected to review and correct - is common practice within the insurance industry. Insurers routinely pre-populate proposal forms and statements of insurance based on renewal data, broker communications, or standardised assumptions, placing the onus on policyholders to identify and rectify any inaccuracies.

If the claimants succeed in establishing that the failure to correct an incorrect presumption cannot be a misrepresentation capable of remedy under CIDRA, this would require wide-scale change in approach across the industry. The outcome of this case could fundamentally alter the balance of responsibility between insurers, brokers, and policyholders in the consumer insurance market, potentially requiring insurers to obtain express confirmation of material facts rather than relying on the "deemed acceptance" model that currently underpins many placement processes.

The distinction between an express representation by a policyholder and tacit endorsement of an insurer's assumption goes to the heart of how CIDRA operates in practice. The industry will be watching this case closely as it progresses to trial.

Recent procedural developments

Following Zurich's service of further particulars in July 2025, the claimants made a Part 18 request for further information and subsequently issued an application seeking to strike out parts of Zurich's further particulars and/or reverse summary judgment, and also seeking disclosure of audio recordings of conversations from 3 and 9 May 2022. The strike out/further information concerns of the claimants relate to the 'contract works' exclusion defence, rather than the misrepresentation arguments discussed above.

At the case management hearing in October 2025, the judge declined to hear the claimants' applications because they had not been formally listed to be heard at that hearing. In December 2025, the claimants' applications were withdrawn and Zurich agreed to provide further information in relation to the 'contract works' exclusion voluntarily.

As we can see from the summary of this claim to date, it appears a hotly contested dispute. Our specialist insurance lawyers will continue to track this case as it heads towards trial, with particular focus on how the Court ultimately resolves the critical question of whether an insurer's pre-populated assumptions can form the basis of a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA.