9.05.2018

IAG New Zealand Ltd v Jackson [2013] NZCA 302

In May 2009 a Christchurch couple, Mr and Mrs Marchand, engaged Mr Jackson (a broker) to arrange insurance, which he failed to do.  This was discovered after the September 2010 earthquake, when the Marchands attempted to make a claim for damage to their home.  Mr Jackson’s failure to place cover was initially a negligent oversight.  However, evidence emerged that he later became aware of this and deliberately failed to remedy the mistake:

  • Mr Jackson received the premium from the Marchands but did not pass this on to the insurer or lodge the insurance application.
  • Mr Jackson gave assurances to the Marchands that cover was in place when he knew this was not correct.
  • When the Marchands made a claim for a pair of spectacles, Mr Jackson had them complete a claim form (which was never lodged) and paid the claim himself.

The Marchands sued Mr Jackson for their uninsured losses.  Mr Jackson sought to join his professional indemnity insurer, IAG NZ as a third party.  IAG NZ applied for summary judgment on the basis that liability for dishonest conduct was excluded.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision by granting IAG NZ summary judgment.

Mr Jackson’s PI policy contained an exclusion “… for civil liability in connection with any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious acts or omissions by [Mr Jackson]…”.  Mr Jackson argued that his apparent dishonesty was not “in connection with” his civil liability to the Marchands since the dishonesty came after he incurred a liability to them by negligently failing to place cover in the first place.

The Court of Appeal was having none of it.  It accepted that “in connection with” requires some causal or consequential relationship.  However, the dishonest act did not need to be the direct or proximate cause of the civil liability, nor did it need to precede the liability in time.  The Marchands would have secured cover before the earthquake if Mr Jackson had not hidden the truth from them.  This was enough to establish the necessary nexus so that the exclusion clause applied.

This interpretation should have a wider application – beyond insurance – since “in connection with” appears in many other forms of contracts.  We respectfully agree with the Court of Appeal’s analysis, which reflects the commonly understood meaning of this phrase.  A narrower interpretation (for example, that there must be a direct causal relationship or that the connection must be “material”) might potentially have had widespread and unintended consequences for other contracts.

Back to Summary Table

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
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

Contractors, Caveats, and Retention of Title clauses
The High Court in Development Construction Company Ltd v Mackenzie [2021] NZHC 546 has confirmed  that retention of title (RoT) clauses do not provide contractors with a caveatable interest. This dec...
How to break up with a suspected money launderer: High Court Guidance
The High Court has provided guidance on how to end a business relationship with a suspected money launderer.
15.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Adjudication When In Administration
In Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd the High Court highlighted the interplay between insolvency and construction adjudication issues.
15.04.2021 Posted in Construction
What happens if my employee refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccination?
While there are enough COVID-19 vaccinations to inoculate each New Zealander, it has been reported that some ‘frontline’ workers have refused to get vaccinated, or have failed to attend vaccinatio...
14.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
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.
-->