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

Payment Claims and Payment Schedules
The Payment Claim / Payment Schedule regime in the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) can be a powerful tool in assisting cashflow in the industry.  Please click here for a practical explanation o...
08.03.2019 Posted in Construction Law
A million reasons for Rangatira to be bitter about the Tuatara earn-out
The Court of Appeal’s decision in The Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd highlights some of the risks with earn-out arrangements and, in contrast to recent High Court rulings, illustrates a more traditio...
06.03.2019 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Don’t Let Your Guard Down
The risks arising from the use of unguarded machinery are well-known to the point of being blindingly obvious.  The measures to ensure the safe operation of machinery are usually straightforward.  W...
19.02.2019 Posted in Health & Safety Law
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REFORM: Ten Guidelines the Government could Adopt
“We need to lead by example and if there are things that we can do to take a leadership position with that industry then we should be.” Prime Minister Ardern[1] As 2018 draws to a close a...
21.12.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Nearly there! Only a few days of 2018 left!
Just a quick note from the Hesketh Henry Employment team about what’s on the horizon:
18.12.2018 Posted in Employment Law
When did you last have your Ts & Cs reviewed?
The Commerce Commission recently announced that, after its investigation of jeweller Michael Hill Limited, the company was fined $169K for breaching its obligations in relation to the extended warrant...
13.12.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Time for Change (again!)
The winds of change are once again blowing through the employment law landscape.
10.12.2018 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.