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

Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Negotiating The Best Incentives For Korean Companies
Hesketh Henry Special Counsel, Hak Jun Lee  recently presented at the 2018 IAKL conference on “ Negotiating the best incentives for Korean companies “. The topic included:  Current trends f...
9.10.2018 Posted in Foreign Investment
Employment Law Team – Some exciting changes
The Employment Law team at Hesketh Henry is thrilled to welcome Jodi Sharman back from parental leave.  Jodi is excited to be back at her desk.  We are also happy to announce that Sam Houliston has ...
25.09.2018 Posted in Employment Law
LexisNexis Foreign Investment Law Guide 2018-2019
Hesketh Henry has authored the New Zealand chapter of the LexisNexis Foreign Investment Law Guide 2018-2019, a guide for foreign investors interested in doing business in New Zealand. The chapter prov...
25.09.2018 Posted in Foreign Investment
Getting the Deal Through: Construction 2019
Partners Nick Gillies, Helen Macfarlane and Christina Bryant are the contributing authors of the New Zealand Chapter of the 2019 edition of “Getting the Deal Through Construction”. Getting...
19.09.2018 Posted in Construction Law
UAE COMPANIES LAW UPDATE
New Zealand businesses looking to establish a foothold in the UAE have many options
10.09.2018 Posted in Trade and Commodities
When You Can’t Have it Your Way
Antares Restaurant Group Limited (which owns and operates Burger King in New Zealand) has received a whopper of a sanction – a ban on the company supporting visa applications until July next year.
4.09.2018 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.