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

Updated Subcontract Agreement: SA-2017
The SA-2009 form of Subcontract Agreement is commonly used in the construction industry. It has undergone a review and a new SA-2017 form has been produced.
3.07.2018 Posted in Construction Law & Health & Safety Law
Distribution Agreements – 6 Key Considerations
While the exact nature and terms of a distribution agreement will vary between industries and jurisdictions, these 6 issues will always be important.
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Continued Importance of IP Protection for Manufacturers
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently released a report which identified key trends and challenges for the manufacturing sector (that report can be accessed here). Th...
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE – JUNE 2018
Recent Construction Law Decisions and Developments in New Zealand
18.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Updated Standard Consultancy Agreements
Two of the most commonly used standard agreements to engage consultants are the ACENZ / Engineering New Zealand (formerly IPENZ) Short Form Agreement (“SFA”) and the Conditions of Contract for Consultancy Services (“CCCS”).
5.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Managing Employees’ Mental Health Issues
Ministry of Health statistics confirm that during 2016, 169,454 people accessed mental health services in New Zealand. The law of averages suggests that most workplaces will – to a lesser or greater degree – be affected at some time by an employee’s mental health issue.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment Law & Health & Safety Law
Managing Medical Incapacity: Enough To Make You Feel Sick?
Managers and HR practitioners often tell us that dealing with employees who are genuinely too sick or injured to work is one of their least favourite tasks. Frankly, we can see why.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment 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.