Jumna Khan v Bankers and Traders Insurance Company Limited

The dispute in *Jumna Khan v Bankers and Traders Insurance Company Limited* concerned a fire insurance policy. The insured, Jumna Khan, had provided answers to questions in a proposal form that the insurer, Bankers and Traders Insurance Company Limited, alleged were untrue. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the insurance company was entitled to avoid the policy due to the alleged untrue answers in the proposal form. This question hinged on whether the agent who filled in the answers acted as an agent for the insurer or for the proposer, and whether the statements constituted a warranty that, if breached, would allow the insurer to void the policy. The court also considered the implications of the proposer being illiterate.

The High Court determined that the agent who completed the proposal form acted as an agent for the insurance company. Consequently, the knowledge of the agent was deemed to be the knowledge of the insurer. The court held that where an agent of the insurer fills in the answers on a proposal form, and the proposer is illiterate, the insurer cannot rely on the falsity of those answers to avoid the policy, especially when the agent was aware of the true facts. The insurer was therefore not entitled to avoid the policy on the grounds of the untrue answers.