Court dismisses insurer's claim that plaintiff failed to disclose pre-contractual facts, allowing partial machine damage claim.

The court dismissed the insurers' argument that the plaintiff failed to disclose specific pre-contractual facts, ruling that the alleged omissions were irrelevant to the claim. While the court acknowledged the plaintiff's duty to inform, it determined that the specific events cited by the insurers did not constitute a breach of the duty to disclose. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's claim for machine and business damage based on the expert report, subject to a referral for further procedural steps regarding repair costs.