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_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

Sanctions Update: Iran
On May 8 2018 US President Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and re-impose sanctions in relation to trade with Iran.
16.08.2018
Stressful‽ Mental Health Risks in Performance Management
Employers are often met with complaints of bullying and stress as soon as performance management commences.
9.08.2018 Posted in Employment Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION RECEIVERSHIP – What You Need To Know
What is currently known? On 31 July 2018 Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) was placed into receivership.  John Fisk, Lara Bennett, and Richard Longman from PwC have been appointed receivers.  The recei...
2.08.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Hesketh Henry Ranked in the new Chambers and Partners HNW (High Net Worth) Guide
We are pleased to announce that the prestigious Chambers and Partners HNW Guide have ranked partner Mary Joy Simpson and the firm in the first Chambers HNW section devoted to the New Zealand private W...
2.08.2018 Posted in Trust Wills Estates
Top ten reasons to pimp your terms (Spoiler alert: The law is only one of them)
Whatever business you’re in, your customer terms and conditions are fundamental and foundational.
30.07.2018 Posted in Company Law & Corporate & Commercial law
Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act 2016
On 25 July 2018 the Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Bill passed its third reading in parliament. The resulting Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act 2016 will come into force on 1 April 2019.
30.07.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Contractor, Worker, Employee: The Gig Economy Gets a Judicial Serve
The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision about a plumber could influence how our own courts classify workers held out as contractors and workers for app-based companies like Uber.
26.07.2018 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.