UK: Court Of Appeal Authoritatively Confirms Fraudulent Devices Rule

Last Updated: 21 October 2014
Article by Joe O'Keeffe and Elle Young

Versloot Dredging BV v HDI-Gerling & others, The DC Merwestone [2014] EWCA Civ 1349

On 16th October 2014, in a judgment of great significance to insurers in all classes of business, the Court of Appeal has authoritatively ruled in underwriters' favour as to the consequences of the use of a fraudulent device by an assured in connection with the presentation of an insurance claim.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is a "bright line rule" whereby an assured who employs a 'fraudulent device' forfeits his claim, despite the fact that the claim would otherwise have been recoverable under the policy.

The decision confirms (with one qualification) the correctness of Lord Justice Mance's (as he then was) obiter (non-binding) and "tentative" dicta in Agapitos v Agnew [2003] QB 556 (The Aegeon) which was to the effect that an assured who embellishes his claim with a lie will lose his claim (even if it would otherwise have been recoverable in full) if the lie directly relates to the claim and satisfies subjective and objective tests as to intention and materiality respectively.

By way of context, there is a long line of authority to the effect that an assured who fraudulently exaggerates his claim under an insurance policy forfeits any lesser claim which he could otherwise properly make (provided that the exaggerated element is not, taken in isolation, de minimis). This is referred to as the 'fraudulent claim rule'. The express public policy rationale of the rule is one of deterrence: an assured should not have a one way bet whereby he loses nothing if his fraud is detected. In The Aegeon Mance LJ held that a fraudulent device is a sub-species of a fraudulent claim, and that the fraudulent devices rule applies by extension to the fraudulent claim rule such that the assured who employs a fraudulent device will accordingly forfeit its claim.

The Aegeon has been applied and followed in a number of decisions of first instance courts and applied by the Privy Council and recognised by the Supreme Court, although neither The Aegeon itself nor the subsequent authorities were, strictly, binding precedent.

At first instance in the present case, The Aegeon was subjected to a searching and hostile critique by Popplewell J, but nonetheless applied. The Court of Appeal's decision handed down today authoritatively confirms the correctness of Mance LJ's dicta in The Aegeon.

First Instance Judgment

In January 2010, the DC Merwestone suffered a flooding incident. Quite remarkably, what should have been a minor and manageable ingress of water into the bow thruster space at the forward end of the vessel resulted in irreparable damage to the vessel's engine located at the aft end of the vessel.

The assured claimed on its Hull & Machinery policy in respect of the cost of replacing the damaged engine.

Popplewell J at first instance rejected underwriters' coverage defences but held that the assured had forfeit its otherwise valid and recoverable claim by its employment of a fraudulent device.

During the casualty investigation underwriters' solicitors sought the assured's explanation for the ingress, its spread from the bow thruster room to the engine room and the reason why crew were unable to control it using the vessel's pumps. The assured's General Manager responded in a letter which contained a representation that the crew had reported that they had heard a bilge alarm (which would have alerted the crew to the flooding) at noon on the day of the casualty but had failed to investigate the alarm on the basis that its sounding had been attributed to the rolling of the vessel. The representation was untrue in that the crew had never heard or reported a noon alarm and had never given an explanation for not investigating.

Popplewell J held that that representation as to the noon alarm was a reckless untruth. The General Manager had no basis to make the representation, having consciously decided not to ask the crew whether it was correct. It was held that the General Manager had not enquired of the crew because he did not want the absence of their confirmation to hinder him giving an explanation of the flooding that involved no fault on the part of the assured's shore-side management (which might have afforded underwriters a defence to the claim).

Having held that the representation had been made recklessly, the Judge found that the representation directly related to the claim; that it had been made by the General Manager with the subjective intention of improving the assured's prospects of payment or settlement; and that it satisfied the relatively low threshold materiality test tentatively suggested by Mance LJ in The Aegeon. Although The Aegeon was not strictly binding on the judge (Mance LJ's comments being obiter dicta), the Judge considered himself compelled to apply The Aegeon and ruled (with manifest regret) that the claim was forfeit by reason of the employment of a fraudulent device.

In light of his express misgivings as to the potentially disproportionate harshness that the fraudulent devices rule as articulated by Mance LJ in The Aegeon could visit on a fraudulent assured (ie forfeiture of an otherwise valid claim), Popplewell J granted the assured permission to appeal on various grounds.

The grounds of appeal which were of general significance were that (i) the fraudulent devices rule as tentatively articulated in The Aegeon was wrong as a matter of law; and (ii) in any event the rule should be struck down on the basis that it violates an assured's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1).

The Court of Appeal Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the assured's appeal.

Lord Justice Clarke gave the leading judgment, setting out "several powerful reasons" for answering in the affirmative the question as to whether the fraudulent devices rule as articulated in The Aegeon should be applied as a matter of binding law.

Those reasons included the facts that whilst not binding, the decision in The Aegeon was "authoritative"; it had been applied and followed and cited without disapproval in numerous cases including cases in the Supreme Court and Privy Council; and it was justified on the basis of the public policy imperative of deterring fraud in insurance claims.

Further, it was held that the extension of the fraudulent claim rule to fraudulent devices is consistent with and supported by the Law Commissions' view of the law and their proposals for law reform.

Clarke LJ recognised that the fraudulent devices rule could operate to produce harsh results in particular cases, however, he found that "the rule is only applicable in case of fraud, from which no insured should have any difficulty in abstaining".
In other words, the rule only visits harsh consequences on assureds who are fraudulent.

Despite confirming The Aegeon as good law, Clarke LJ left open the question as to the appropriate materiality test. Mance LJ suggested a test in The Aegeon on the basis that the lie told to embellish the claim must be one which "if believed would tend to yield a not insignificant improvement in the assured's prospects of success prior to any final determination of the parties' rights..." Clarke LJ questioned the adoption of this negative formulation and expressed a preference (without deciding the point) for a positive requirement that the fraudulent device should "objectively have tended to produce" a "significant improvement in the insured's prospects". Whether there is a real difference between a "significant improvement" and a "not insignificant improvement" will doubtless be a matter for debate in the future. It was held in the present case that the misrepresentation would have satisfied the test on either formulation.

As for the Human Rights Act argument, it was said by the assured that the fraudulent devices rule violates A1P1 which provides that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" (a company being a "legal person" and an accrued right to indemnity under an insurance policy being a "possession"). Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes a Court, to act in a way which is incompatible with A1P1.

It was agreed that forfeiture of an insurance claim is an "interference" with "possessions" that potentially engaged A1P1. The issue therefore was whether the interference was justifiable on the basis that it "pursue[s] a legitimate aim by means that are reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised" (AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2002] 1 AC 868) and strikes "a fair balance ... between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights" (Barnes v Eastenders Cash & Carry plc [2014] 2 WLR 1269).

In this respect, there was no real dispute that the fraudulent device rule has a legitimate public policy aim (deterrence of fraud) but the assured argued that in the absence of a case-by-case proportionality test the rule violated A1P1.

The Court of Appeal accepted underwriters' submission that the rule contains its own in-built proportionality test in the sense that the rule only applies to fraudulent devices that (i) directly relate to the claim; (ii) are intended by the assured to promote his prospect of success; and (iii) are, objectively assessed, capable of improving the assured's prospects of payment or settlement prior to final determination of the parties' rights.

Clarke LJ held that the critical question in terms of A1P1 was not whether the consequence of forfeiture in an individual case was proportionate to the fraud but whether a general rule that the use of a fraudulent device which fulfils the three criteria set out above forfeits the claim is, looking at the matter overall, a proportionate means of securing the aim of deterring fraud in relation to insurance claims. He answered that critical question in the affirmative noting that "once it is accepted that deterrence is a legitimate aim, the fact that forfeiture is a harsh, in some circumstances very harsh, sanction does not mean that it is disproportionate".

It was therefore held that the fraudulent device rule does not violate A1P1.


The judgment is of real significance to both marine and non-marine underwriters. It authoritatively establishes that an assured who uses a fraudulent device to promote an otherwise valid claim forfeits its claim.

It remains to be seen whether the assured will be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Joe O'Keeffe and Elle Young of Ince & Co acted for the successful underwriters in the First Instance and Court of Appeal proceedings. Faz Peermohamed and Paul Billowes of Ince & Co conducted the initial casualty investigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.