# International case law: notification, disclosure and time limits URL: https://insurancelawestonia.ee/international-insurance-case-law/notification-disclosure-and-time-limits/ Author: Dr Olavi-Jüri Luik, Partner, Head of Insurance Law, attorney at law (Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ) Last updated: 2026-11-11 > 12 decisions of foreign courts on notification, disclosure and time limits: summaries, paragraphs and links. This page is part of the [overview of international insurance case law](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/international-insurance-case-law). It collects 12 decisions of foreign courts on this topic, in chronological order, with a short synthesis. Foreign decisions are not binding in Estonia. Citation conventions and links are explained on the [overview page](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/international-insurance-case-law#how-to-use-this-overview). ## Synthesis These judgments deal with pre-contractual disclosure, the insurer's duty to inform and the consequences of notification failures. Under French law the policyholder need only answer the insurer's precise questions (ch. mixte 07.02.2014), and a bank offering loan insurance must explain whether the cover suits the borrower (ass. plén. 02.03.2007). Section 54 of the Australian Insurance Contracts Act and Texas case law do not allow refusal for late notice where the insurer was not prejudiced (FAI, Maxwell, PAJ), whereas under a claims-made policy notification of a claim is a condition of cover (Jesuit Fathers). In case of fraud the insurer need not warn the policyholder of the consequences (BGH IV ZR 306/13). In Estonian law see VÕS §§ 440 to 442 (disclosure and withdrawal), §§ 448 and 449 (notice of the insured event) and § 475 (limitation). ## Decisions ### FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 38 *High Court of Australia, 27.06.2001* · Australia · paras 4-12, 46, 88 · Insurance Contracts Act 1984 s 54; claims-made policy; failure to notify circumstances A hospital operator knew during the policy period of circumstances that might give rise to a claim but did not notify the insurer; the claim was made after the policy expired. The majority of the High Court held that s 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act applies to claims-made policies: the insurer cannot refuse the claim merely because of the failure to notify (paras 46, 88), its remedy being limited to the prejudice caused. The appeal was dismissed; the Chief Justice dissented (paras 4-12). Relevance: the causation requirement for breaches of obligations (VÕS § 452(2)). [Text of the decision: hcourt.gov.au](https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/2001/HCA/38.pdf) ### Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 21 *Supreme Court of Canada, 01.06.2006* · Canada · paras 1, 27-29, 33, 41-43, 64 · claims-made policy; concept of a claim; duty to defend Claims were brought against a religious order by former residential school students, and the insurer's duty to defend depended on whether the policy was claims-made or occurrence-based. The Supreme Court of Canada held that, read as a whole, the policy was claims-made and its occurrence-reporting elements did not extend cover (paras 27-29, 41-43); a 'claim' requires a communication during the policy period of an intention to hold the insured responsible. A duty to defend arose only for one claim (paras 1, 64); the appeal was dismissed. Relevance: claims-made policies and the concept of a claim. [Text of the decision: decisions.scc-csc.ca](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2293/index.do) ### Cass. ass. plén., 02.03.2007, nº 06-15.267 *French Court of Cassation, Plenary Assembly, 02.03.2007* · France · loan insurance; bank's duty to advise; joining a group policy A bank offered a borrower membership of its group loan insurance, and the borrower later found that the cover did not suit his situation. The Plenary Assembly held that a bank proposing membership of a group policy must inform the borrower whether the cover is adequate for his personal situation; handing over the policy notice is insufficient, and clear policy terms do not release the bank from that duty. The judgment of the court of appeal was quashed. Relevance: suitability and advice duties in insurance distribution. [Text of the decision: legifrance.gouv.fr](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000017906402) ### PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 243 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. 2008) *Supreme Court of Texas, 11.01.2008* · United States, Texas · late notice; prejudice requirement; advertising injury; occurrence policy A jewellery company notified its insurer of a copyright infringement suit only months after it was filed. The Supreme Court of Texas held that under an occurrence-based CGL policy late notice does not defeat coverage absent prejudice to the insurer, since the prompt-notice provision is not an essential part of the bargained-for exchange. Four justices dissented, treating the provision as a condition precedent. Relevance: VÕS § 449 (consequences of failure to notify) and the causation requirement. [Text of the decision: caselaw.findlaw.com (reprint)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tx-supreme-court/1469658.html) ### KKO 2011:5 *Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein oikeus), 17.01.2011* · Finland · paras 17-19 · unit-linked life insurance; pre-contractual information duty; investment experience The policyholders lost a large part of their investment in unit-linked savings life insurance as equity funds fell, and claimed damages for breach of the information duty. The Supreme Court held that the written offer and terms alone did not satisfy the information duty, as they did not describe the size of the risk and the offer painted a very attractive picture of returns (para 17); however, the bank manager had explained the risk in personal meetings and the clients were experienced investors, so the duty was fulfilled (paras 18-19). The insurer was not liable. Relevance: information duties for unit-linked life insurance and the client's knowledge. [Text of the decision: finlex.fi](https://www.finlex.fi/fi/oikeuskaytanto/korkein-oikeus/ennakkopaatokset/2011/5) ### Cass. 2e civ., 18.04.2013, nº 12-19.519 *French Court of Cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 18.04.2013* · France · limitation; insurer's duty to inform; Code des assurances Arts R112-1 and L114-1 The insurer relied on the two-year limitation period, but the policy did not explain the usual grounds for interrupting limitation. The Court of Cassation held that under Article R112-1 the policy must recall the limitation rules, including the ordinary causes of interruption; otherwise the insurer cannot rely on the two-year period against the insured. The judgment was quashed. Relevance: limitation under VÕS § 475 and informing policyholders of time limits. [Text of the decision: legifrance.gouv.fr](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000027335572/) ### Cass. ch. mixte, 07.02.2014, nº 12-85.107 *French Court of Cassation, Mixed Chamber, 07.02.2014* · France · pre-contractual disclosure; precise questions; intentional misrepresentation; Code des assurances Arts L113-2 and L113-8 The insurer claimed that the policyholder had intentionally made false statements through declarations pre-printed in the particular conditions, and sought nullity of the contract. The Mixed Chamber held that the policyholder must answer accurately the precise questions put by the insurer at conclusion of the contract, and that nullity for intentional misrepresentation can be based only on answers to such questions, not on declarations printed in the particular conditions. The judgment was quashed to that extent. Relevance: VÕS § 440 and the role of the questionnaire in defining the duty of disclosure. [Text of the decision: legifrance.gouv.fr](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000028574768/) ### BGH 12.03.2014, IV ZR 306/13 *Federal Court of Justice (BGH), IV Civil Senate, 12.03.2014* · Germany · headnote; Rn 9-13 · pre-contractual disclosure; fraud; withdrawal; duty to warn; attribution of broker's fraud Material illnesses were fraudulently omitted from an application for private health insurance, and the insurer withdrew from the contract although it had not warned the policyholder of the consequences of non-disclosure by separate notice in text form. The BGH held that a policyholder who acted fraudulently cannot rely on the missing warning (§ 19(5) VVG), so the insurer was entitled to withdraw; the broker's fraud was attributed to the policyholder. The appeal on points of law was dismissed. Relevance: VÕS §§ 440 to 442 and the insurer's right of withdrawal in cases of fraud. [Decision details and text: dejure.org](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=12.03.2014&Aktenzeichen=IV%20ZR%20306/13) ### Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33 *High Court of Australia, 10.09.2014* · Australia · para 27 · Insurance Contracts Act 1984 s 54; driver testing requirement; causation A truck policy required drivers to have passed a specified test; the drivers involved in the accidents had not done so, but this had no connection with the loss. The High Court held that s 54 applied: the failure to test was an omission during the policy period, an 'act' within the statute, which did not cause or contribute to the loss, and it did not matter how the policy framed the exclusionary effect (para 27). The insurers could not refuse the claims. Relevance: proportionality and causation for breaches of safety requirements (VÕS § 452(2)). [Text of the decision: hcourt.gov.au](https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/2014/HCA/33.pdf) ### Cass. 2e civ., 17.06.2021, nº 19-24.467 *French Court of Cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 17.06.2021* · France · paras 6-9 · loan insurance; back condition exclusion; formality; bank's duty to advise A loan insurance exclusion listed several back conditions and added 'and other back pain'. The Court of Cassation held that an exclusion must be formal and limited (para 6) and that such a clause met neither requirement and could not be applied at all, even where the insured's condition was precisely listed (paras 7, 9); the court also addressed the bank's duty to advise. The later judgment of 17.09.2026 (no 25-12.441) changed the approach to the extent of ineffectiveness: each exclusion is assessed separately. Relevance: clarity of exclusions and partial nullity of standard terms (VÕS § 42). [Text of the decision: legifrance.gouv.fr](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000043684285) ### HR-2021-2404-A (Eika Forsikring AS v A) *Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), 07.12.2021* · Norway · paras 41, 43, 51, 54, 61, 66 · Insurance Contracts Act (FAL) § 8-5; six-month time bar; conciliation board; loss of claim The insurer refused payment and gave the insured notice of the six-month period within which the matter had to be brought to court. The Supreme Court held that the period in FAL § 8-5(2) is a limitation-type rule whose expiry extinguishes the claim (paras 41, 43, 54); a complaint to the conciliation board (forliksråd) suspended the period, but that effect ended one year after the conciliation proceedings concluded, so the later action was time-barred (paras 51, 54). The insurer's appeal was allowed (paras 61, 66). Relevance: limitation under VÕS § 475 and notices given by insurers. [Text of the decision: domstol.no](https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2021/desember-2021/hr-2021-2404-a.pdf) ### Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Ltd., [2022] 17 S.C.R. 297 *Supreme Court of India, 25.04.2022* · India · paras 3, 5, 15-20, 22 · export credit insurance; ambiguous date of despatch; contra proferentem; date of shipment An export credit policy covered a foreign buyer's default, but the date of despatch was not clearly specified in the policy, and the insurer, applying export guidelines, relied on the on-board date noted on the bill of lading, one day before cover began (paras 3, 5). The Supreme Court of India held that the decisive event was the buyer's default, which occurred during the cover period (para 15), that the ambiguous term must be construed against the insurer that drafted it (para 16), and that the date of the bill of lading was to be treated as the date of despatch (para 17); export guidelines could not override the policy and did not support the refusal in any event (paras 18-20). The insurer had to pay with interest (para 22). Relevance: construing ambiguous standard terms under VÕS § 39. [Text of the decision: api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/23740/23740_2020_2_1501_35229_Judgement_25-Apr-2022.pdf)