Search

The Australian High Court ruled in Newcastle City Council v. GIO General Ltd. that section 40 of the Insurance Contracts Act applied to both 'claims made' and 'claims made and notified' policies. The court made this ruling based on legislative intent. This decision eliminates the distinction between the two types of policies.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Akai Pty v. People's Insurance Co established that a foreign jurisdiction clause in an insurance clause could be overridden on choice of law and public policy principles. The Court disregarded the parties' intent, as expressed in the contract, and treated the clause as a choice of forum clause subject to Australian law. The result was that the High Court dismissed the stay of proceedings, allowing Akai to make use of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.

The Australia High Court ruled in United Insurance Brokers Pty v. Rocco Pezzano Pty that the assured must meet causation and remoteness of damage requirements before damages for a broker's breach of contract can be ascertained. At issue was whether a settlement reached between the assured and broker was reasonable and how the assured's loss was to be measured for damages.

The Queensland Court of Appeal ruled in Hampson Syndicate 1204 v. Mining Technologies Australia Pty. that an insurer was liable for partial loss expenses under their policy to the mining company. The case involved mining equipment buried in a shaft collapse and the cost of trying to retrieve it. The court ruled that the insurer was not beyond the scope of the policy's indemnity and the company ws entitled to recover retrieval costs.

The High Court of Australia ruled in CIC Insurance Ltd. v. Bankstown Football Club that section 58 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 did not apply and that a statutory contract was not formed when the insurer incorrectly cancelled a fire insurance policy. The insurance policy's indemnity clause limited the insurer's liability if the insured did not rebuild or repair promptly. The Court found that the indemnity clause was applicable and that the insurer's liability was limited to the indemnity value at the time of the first of the two fires involved.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found in Hartman v. GIO Australia Ltd. that the insured could not be excluded from insurance coverage for an injury to a guest at a dinner party. The Court focused on the meaning of "owner or occupier" in the policy exclusion for liability incurred as the owner or occupier of the insured building. The Court found that the insurer was being sued as a casual tortfeasor and not as the owner or occupier of the property so the exclusion did not apply to bar indemnification.

The High Court of Australia ruled in Qantas Airways Ltd. v. Aravco Ltd. that the indemnity clause in the insurance contract between Qantas and Aravco did not violate section 74(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. BAT Industries PLC sued Qantas for negligent damage to aircraft owned by BAT. While Qantas did indeed breach the implied warranty of due care imposed by section 74(1), that breach had no effect on the indemnification agreement. Aravco could not make a claim under section 74(1) unless it actually sued Qantas for breach of warranty.

A professional indemnity insurance case was brought before the New South Wales Court of Appeal in which the insurer was notified of the claim after the expiration of the coverage and after judgment was entered against the insured on behalf of the claimant. Application of Section 54 of the Australian Insurance Contracts Act 1984 proved the insurer was exempt from providing coverage.

This article discussed a New South Wales Supreme Court case entitled in Summation v. SGIC Life Ltd. which considered the question of when a life insurance contract takes effect. Related questions include whether there had been a breach of the duty of disclosure, and, whether such duty to disclose would be triggered only if there was a reasonable opportunity to do so before the contract was made.