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

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
Summer Maritime Update
Welcome to our summer maritime update - November 2018
27.11.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
Employment Litigation Costs: In for a penny, in for a pound?
Vindication is frequently offered as a motivation for litigation.
Ebert Construction: Court provides Guidance on the Retentions Trust Regime
Following our previous updates (Ebert Construction Receivership – What You Need to Know and Ebert Construction – Receivership and Liquidation), on 12 November 2018 the High Court ordered that the ...
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When Actual Delay Losses Exceed Liquidated Damages
14.11.2018 Posted in Construction Law
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 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.