The Court of Appeal has dismissed a farmer’s appeal against the rejection of his claim for storm damage to two cattle sheds on his County Mayo farm. It upheld the High Court’s findings that he was responsible for inaccurate information about the sheds’ age and that Zurich was entitled to withdraw storm cover for those buildings.
The appeal concerned damage the farmer said Storm Doris caused on 23 February 2017. He sought €77,000 for repairs. Zurich declined the claim after learning that the sheds were older and of a different construction than the information used to quote for the policy indicated. It withdrew storm cover for the sheds retrospectively, refunded the related premium, and continued the rest of the policy. Zurich later declined to renew it.
The farmer alleged that his insurance broker, Future, had entered incorrect information without his input. Future said he provided the details, including that the sheds were built in 2007. At trial, the farmer disputed giving that information and said he relied on the broker. The broker’s representative testified that he provided the information in person and later reviewed the Zurich quotation without correcting it.
The High Court dismissed the proceedings in April 2020, finding on the balance of probabilities that the farmer, not the broker, supplied the inaccurate information. It also found he had opportunities to identify and correct the description. On appeal, he challenged the factual findings, the admission of unsigned documents and the handling of his claim for losses connected with difficulty obtaining insurance.
Delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 3 February 2022, Mr Justice Binchy said the trial judge had ample credible evidence for his conclusions. The court noted that the farmer had signed earlier Aviva forms that also gave inaccurate descriptions, and that Zurich policy documents described the cattle sheds as “2007”. It held that the trial judge’s findings should not be disturbed.
The court said Zurich could have repudiated the policy but instead withdrew storm cover for the cattle sheds while continuing other cover. It concluded Zurich was entitled to reject the claim because those sheds were not covered for storm damage. It also held Zurich was entitled to refuse renewal in 2018. The appeal was dismissed.
The judgment set out provisional views that the farmer should pay both respondents’ appeal costs, subject to adjudication if not agreed. He could seek a short hearing on costs within 14 days of delivery of the judgment. The judgment does not state the final costs order.