It is difficult to distinguish between momentary inattention and mere inadvertence. If there is no difference, then Lloyd LJ may have misled Sofi when he commented that the insurers presentation could have been successful if the insured had not thought of the danger of theft, when there is also a reference to the insurer being liable. if the matter were only one of momentary inattention. Both involve a failure to properly consider the risk at the relevant time, but the momentary inattention would require the insured to comply with the policy generally, but for a moment when he did not take all reasonable steps because he was distracted enough to forget. temporarily. . The carelessness could be not having considered the risk at all, or believing that action had been taken when none had been taken, for example by removing the car keys but accidentally dropping them after having locked the car. Momentary inattention constitutes negligence, as does inadvertence, but this is precisely what the policy is intended to cover on the part of the insured. The impression that Sofi gives is that if the keys had been left in the ignition due to carelessness, the insured’s claim would have been met. However, such negligence could become a breach of term over time, if the insured realizes that he is in breach but does not act to remedy the situation. The time element may be relevant to the insurer in proving that the insured must have appreciated the risk at some point but failed to act, for example he must have concluded that he left the keys in the car when he could not. locate them. However, if, for example, an insured fails to set the burglar alarm and maintains that he forgot and did not notice the omission until he returned to the premises, then the insurer will have an uphill task in establishing the breach of condition. .

A condition of reasonable care can sometimes include the obligation of the insured to behave as if he were uninsured. This appears to be an entirely subjective requirement so that, for example, where the “insured” would not have taken elaborate precautions to protect items of little value, there would be no lack of reasonable care because the insured likely would not have taken any reasonable precautions whether he was insured or not.

The Court of Appeal in Sofi also refused to distinguish between liability and property insurance for the applicability of the negligence test. It is well established that in liability policies the reasonable care provisions require the insured only to avoid non-receipt. Slade LJ stated that the recklessness test is equally applicable to property or liability insurance. Therefore, it is clear that this test will be applicable to ARPI policies.

The Sofi court also established the guidelines then used by the Insurance Ombudsman, which were as follows:

– What was the value of the merchandise at risk?

– What was the reason for having them in the place where they were taken?

– What precautions were actually taken to safeguard them?

– Were there alternatives open to the policyholder?

The court commented that the higher the value of the insured property, the greater the risk of it being stolen, and the easier it would be for the insurer to establish that the insured deliberately cut the risk by taking steps he knew to be improper.