A London court dismissed a Belgian scrap dealer's claim against Lloyd's, holding that the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy over undisclosed cargo fires.
The Commercial Court handed down its decision on July 21, 2026, dismissing the claim brought by Cometsambre SA against Lloyd's Insurance Company SA.
Cometsambre, a scrap metal dealer, chartered ships to move scrap out of Ghent, Belgium. To cover its exposure as charterer, it held Charterers' Liability and Freight Demurrage and Defence insurance, placed in the Lloyd's market through a coverholder. Cover was first arranged in 2008 and renewed in most years since; the dispute concerned the 2022 renewal, under which the risk sat with Hartford's Syndicate 1221, formerly known as "Navigators." The Charterers' Liability limit was "USD 25.000.000,00 any one accident or occurrence."
In June 2022, a fire aboard the chartered LOWLANDS MIMOSA during loading at Ghent gave rise to a large claim against Cometsambre. Cometsambre sought a declaration that the insurer had to indemnify it. The insurer instead avoided the policy - treating it as if it had never existed - and pointed to fires the dealer had not disclosed.
The case turned on the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015, which requires an insured to disclose material facts before cover starts. A circumstance is material, the Act says, "if it would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in determining whether to take the risk and, if so, on what terms." The insurer did not allege that Cometsambre's non-disclosure was deliberate or reckless.
The undisclosed facts were a run of fires. Between May 2020 and October 2021 - after about twelve years without a vessel fire - Cometsambre experienced five: three on chartered ships, the ORIENT DYNASTY, COMMON SPIRIT and SAKURA, and two in scrap stockpiles waiting on the quayside. None had produced a claim. None was raised at the 2022 renewal.
For underwriters and claims teams, the court's reasoning is the point. First, an incident can matter even when no one claims. The court accepted expert evidence for the insurer that a shipboard fire is "a paradigm example of an incident which can give rise to liability to the shipowner," and that a prudent underwriter "would want to know about every fire on board any chartered vessel before writing a charterers' liability policy, regardless of whether it gave rise to any loss or claim."
Second, a change in the risk pattern is itself material. The insurer's expert described about twelve years without a vessel fire, followed by five fires in about 18 months, as "a significant change in the risk profile."
Third, incidents that might sit on a different policy can still count. The insurer argued that quayside stockpile fires, even if any resulting loss fell to a separate property policy, told an underwriter something about the cargo. The court agreed the record was relevant to the risk being assessed.
The insurer also had to show inducement - that full disclosure would have changed its decision. Its underwriter gave evidence that he would not have renewed at any premium, describing five fires as "an accident waiting to happen." Judges have repeatedly cautioned against "post-claim underwriting," where an insurer concludes after a loss that it would never have written the risk. The court applied that scepticism, tested the evidence, and accepted it.
Cometsambre's defences all failed. It argued the scrap trade carries a known fire risk, that the insurer was on notice to ask further questions, and that the insurer had waived the point. The court rejected each, and found that Cometsambre knew or ought to have known of the fires and should have disclosed them.
The court held that "Lloyd's was entitled to avoid the contract and tender a return of the premium, as it has." Cometsambre's claim was dismissed.
