Which of the following is not a valid defence against a claim of misrepresentation?

In the context of misrepresentation in insurance, a valid defense typically hinges on whether the misrepresentation was made knowingly or carelessly, and whether it influenced the insurer's decision to provide coverage or set the premium. The correct answer highlights that having no previous insurance experience is not a defense against a claim of misrepresentation.

Insurers expect policyholders to provide accurate information based on the understanding that it is their responsibility to disclose pertinent information truthfully, regardless of their prior experience in insurance. Therefore, a lack of experience does not excuse the insured from the obligation to ensure that the information provided is accurate.

In assessing the other options, thinking that the information was correct could indicate an honest mistake but does not completely absolve responsibility if negligence is involved. The insurer’s failure to ask specific questions is commonly seen as a potential factor in the process, but it does not change the nature of the misrepresentation itself. Lastly, if the misrepresentation did not influence the premium, while it might mitigate some consequences, it does not negate the existence of misrepresentation at its core.