Section 2(1) of the 1967 Act provides, in principle, that damages may be awarded even for an
innocent misrepresentation, unless the party making it reasonably believed that the facts represented were true; and section 2(2) provides, broadly, that where a non-fraudulent misrepresentation gives an entitlement to rescission, and the court considers that it would be equitable to award damages in lieu of rescission, it may do so.
As to those kinds of questions, insureds are viewed as being asked only for opinions, not facts.(67) The implicit qualifications in these questions have the effect of disallowing avoidance for an
innocent misrepresentation, even when state law purports to allow such action.