9.05.2018

BFSL 2007 Ltd v Steigrad [2013] NZSC 156

On 23 December 2013, the Supreme Court delivered a controversial decision on the operation of s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 on costs-inclusive liability policies, which is likely to have ongoing adverse consequences for insurers and their insureds.

Section 9(1) of the Law Reform Act 1936 provides:

If any person (hereinafter in this Part referred to as the insured) has… entered into a contract of insurance by which he is indemnified against liability to pay any damages or compensation, the amount of his liability shall, on the happening of the event giving rise to the claim for damages or compensation, and notwithstanding that the amount of such liability may not then have been determined, be a charge on all insurance moneys that are or may become payable in respect of that liability.

The receivers of the Bridgecorp group of companies and representative shareholders of Feltex Carpets Ltd (in receivership) brought claims against the directors and former directors of those companies.  The directors sought cover for their defence costs under certain insurance policies, which provided both an indemnity for the directors’ liability for third party claims and cover for their defence costs.  Under the terms of the policies, defence costs were payable as they fell due, but third party claims became payable only when liability was established, by a judgment or by settlement.  The policies were “costs-inclusive”: payment of any defence costs reduced the total amount available for payment under the indemnity.

The receivers and shareholders argued that the charge created by s 9(1) secured the maximum cover available under the policy for the indemnity from the date of the act or event giving rise to their claim.  The maximum sum secured by the charge could not, they claimed, be depleted by the payment of defence costs in the interval between the creation of the charge and the date of judgment or settlement.

The contrary argument, supported by a minority of two judges in the Supreme Court, was that the charge under s 9(1) attached to the contractual right to an indemnity under the policy.  The scope of that right (including the amount which must be paid) depended on the factual circumstances at the time the insurer was required to make payment under the indemnity.  If the insurer had already paid out defence costs in accordance with its obligations under the policy, then the maximum amount payable under the indemnity was reduced in accordance with the policy terms.

Notwithstanding the force of this argument[1], the majority held that the charge attaches to the maximum amount of cover that could ever be paid under the policy.  As a result, the insurer is “at peril” if it complies with its contractual obligation to pay defence costs in circumstances where there is insufficient insurance cover to meet both insurance obligations (namely the obligation to indemnify and the obligation to pay costs).

Unhelpfully, the majority did not address whether an insurer is entitled to refuse to pay defence costs in those circumstances.  Faced with a costs-inclusive policy and a claim that may exceed the policy limit, insurers have the unappealing options of breaching the contract with their insured, extending their risk above the maximum policy limit and/or litigation to establish whether or not their contractual obligation can be avoided.

Section 9 has general application to liability insurance policies.  While the industry response to the High Court judgment in Steigrad has seen a move away from costs-inclusive policies, litigation has a very long tail.  The judgment may have an ongoing impact on existing litigation claims, claims for which precautionary notifications have been made under costs-inclusive policies and project-specific policies under which claims have yet to surface.  Insurers and insureds will need to review the status of notifications made under such policies, and consider their options for addressing liability for costs if and when a claim eventuates.

Back to Summary Table

 


[1] Which is largely consistent with the judgment of the Full Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Chubb Insurance Co of Australasia Ltd v Moore [2013] NSWCA 212, (2013) 302 ALR 101
Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Getting the Deal Through: Construction 2019
Partners Nick Gillies, Helen Macfarlane and Christina Bryant are the contributing authors of the New Zealand Chapter of the 2019 edition of “Getting the Deal Through Construction”. Getting...
19.09.2018 Posted in Construction Law
UAE COMPANIES LAW UPDATE
New Zealand businesses looking to establish a foothold in the UAE have many options
10.09.2018 Posted in Trade and Commodities
When You Can’t Have it Your Way
Antares Restaurant Group Limited (which owns and operates Burger King in New Zealand) has received a whopper of a sanction – a ban on the company supporting visa applications until July next year.
4.09.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019
The Marine team at Hesketh Henry have again contributed to Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019.
30.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
A Guide to Concurrent Delay
Hesketh Henry was pleased to host the New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors on 14 August 2018, where one of our construction partners, Nick Gillies, presented on concurrent delay.  The same pre...
22.08.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Update – New Zealand’s New Biofouling Standards
New Zealand has introduced a new standard requiring all vessels to have a “clean hull” on arrival in the country after 15  May 2018.[1]  The objective is to minimise the introduction of ...
21.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
No Longer Stumped: The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Sentencing Guidelines
The High Court at Auckland has released its first and much-awaited decision under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
21.08.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.