In the case of Jenny not disclosing her husband's criminal history, how will the insurer most likely react?

In the context of insurance law, insurers rely heavily on the principle of utmost good faith, or "uberrima fides," which requires both parties to be honest and transparent in their dealings. Non-disclosure of material facts, such as a spouse's criminal history, can significantly affect the insurer's assessment of risk and the terms of the policy.

If Jenny has failed to disclose her husband's criminal history, which could impact the underwriting decision, the insurer is likely to view this as a serious breach of the duty of disclosure. This breach may be interpreted as misrepresentation or fraud, particularly if the non-disclosure materially influenced the insurer's decision to provide coverage or set specific terms.

In many jurisdictions, if an insurer discovers that a policyholder has not disclosed critical information that would have likely influenced their underwriting process, they may deny a claim on the grounds of fraud or material non-disclosure. This aligns with the insurer's right to protect themselves from undue risk based on incomplete or misleading information.

Thus, the most reasonable response from the insurer in this scenario would indeed be to deny the claim due to fraud, as this aligns with the legal principles governing insurance contracts and the expectations of full disclosure.