9.05.2018

Insurance Case Law Update December 2015

In this insurance law update, we summarise significant decisions released in the second half of 2015.

A more extensive discussion of particular judgments is linked to the case names highlighted in the summary table. For further information on issues raised in this update, please contact the Hesketh Henry insurance law team.

Summary of cases:

CaseIssuesDecision / Principle
Southern Response v Avonside Holdings Ltd [2015] NZSC 110Assessment of notional costs of rebuildRight to acquire another property capped at the cost of rebuilding the insured property on the existing site.  Notional cost of rebuild includes an estimate for contingencies and professional fees.
Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education (CA)Product liabilityRefusal to strike out claims in tort and under the Consumer Guarantees Act against a manufacturer of building products by the end-consumer.  Building Act 10 year limitation longstop does not apply to product manufacture and supply.  Leave granted to appeal to Supreme Court.
Tower Insurance Ltd v Domenico Trustee Ltd (CA)Insurer’s right of electionFinding of election by delay not available on the pleadings, judgment set aside and proceeding remitted to High Court.  Reservation expressed as to whether Court can itself make an election for an insurer by reason of delay.
JCS Cost Management Ltd v QBE (CA)Interpretation of a professional indemnity policyPolicy required a causal nexus between the claim made and the professional services.  Definition of services did not include free advice given to a client to secure prospective work.
Vero Liability Insurance Ltd v Heartland Bank Ltd (formerly Marac Finance Ltd) [2015] NZCA 288 and [2015] NZSC 168Commercial Crime Policy Policy covered direct financial losses consequent on act(s) of dishonesty by an employee with a clear intent to cause loss to the insured.  Appeal allowed: no clear intent to cause loss to Marac.  Loans were made dishonestly but in the belief that continued trading by the debtor would lead to repayment of all that was owed.  No direct losses during the policy period: advances made were less than repayments.  Supreme Court declined leave to appeal.
HHR Christchurch NTL Ltd v Crystal Imports Ltd [2015] NZCA 283Interpretation of a composite material damage policy

Estoppel

Tenant requested an insurance certificate to confirm that the landlord’s interest was covered by the tenant’s material damage policy.  Insurer provided the requested certificate.  Dispute as to whether the policy covered the landlord’s interest.  Tenant and insurer estopped from denying cover.
AAI Ltd v 92 Lichfield Ltd (in rec & liq) [2015] NZCA 559Use of statutory demand procedure

Contract interpretation

AAI applied to set aside a statutory demand based on a debt allegedly owed under a settlement agreement.  Substantial dispute as to terms of the agreement (based on the factual matrix) and whether an agreement had been concluded.  The statutory demand was an abuse of process, as the debt was known to be subject to a genuine dispute.
Northern Farm Services Ltd v Codylan Farms Ltd [2015] NZCA 567Test for breach of professional services contractPerformance is measured by common professional or industry practice, provided that practice can withstand logical scrutiny on an assessment of relative risks and benefits.
Parkin v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd (HC)Repair to standard “when new”

Breach of Fair Insurance Code

If an element has only a functional purpose, a repair which restores function to a “when new” condition is sufficient.  “Jacking and packing” concealed foundations met this repair standard.  Alleged failure to explain policy entitlements not pleaded or made out on the facts.
C&S Kelly Properties Ltd v EQC (HC)EQC right of election

Exercise of discretionary rights

 EQC’s statutory right of election is equivalent to a contractual right.  EQC’s right to elect to reinstate was lost through delay.  Insured given option of either a cash settlement or reinstatement.
 Miah v National Mutual Life [2015] NZHC 993 Ownership of life insurance policy Life insurance policy jointly owned by husband and wife.  Wife died following bankruptcy of husband.  Official Assignee refused to assign policy on his release from bankruptcy.  Husband sued insurer as executor of his wife’s estate.  Held: the benefit of the policy is owned solely by the surviving spouse, whose rights had vested in the Official Assignee.
Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill CC [2015] NZHC 1983Duty of care owed by councils for defects in commercial buildings

Councils’ ability to limit liability in contract

GST payable in subrogated claims

 The Trust successfully sued the Council for the Stadium Southland roof collapse.  The action was a subrogated claim, and the amount recovered by the Trust and paid to the insurer would be subject to GST.  The Trust sought to recover GST on top of damages from the Council.  Held: 1) a damages award is not a taxable supply 2) as the Trust is GST-registered, its loss is limited to the net cost of repairs and lost rent 3) a damages award is not a payment under the insurance contract (the Trust’s right to damages is independent of that contract).  The payment from the Trust to the insurer is received in a different context, which justifies a different tax treatment.  Subrogated recoveries are a source of revenue in the insurer’s business.
Banicevich v AMP Services (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZHC 2273Avoidance of policy for breach of utmost good faith, disclosure and fair dealingInsurance agent took out trauma cover to generate commission income while in financial difficulty and did not intend to pay premiums on the due date.  Policy avoided as a result.  Policy also validly cancelled and did not cover claimant’s disease.
Newbery v AA Insurance Ltd [2015] NZHC 2457Contract interpretation Contents policy restricted cover for works of art, including ornaments and sculptures, not specified in the policy schedule.  Reasonable contracting parties would understand “ornaments” (but not “sculptures”) to include Lladro figurines.
Walters Law v AIG Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZHC 2701Requirements for advance notificationFirm acted for Blue Chip and investors on a number of property settlements.  In anticipation of a change to its professional indemnity insurance, the firm made an advance notification of all Blue Chip transactions.  Insufficient information in notice to establish a substantial link between notification and claim made; summary judgment declined.

 

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

COVID-19 Redundancies: Cutting Corners Courts Censure
The Employment Relations Authority (Authority) has recently issued a determination that considers redundancies implemented due to the Government’s COVID-19 restrictions:  De Wys and Jenney v Solly...
13.08.2020 Posted in COVID-19 & Employment Law
Losses caused by 2011 earthquakes not a “series of losses”
Moore v IAG New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 319
12.08.2020 Posted in Insurance Law
Cancelled Plans and Future Liabilities: A post lockdown annual holidays FAQ
COVID-19 has not only hit many employers hard in terms of economic impact, it has also confronted employers with many employment challenges that require urgent attention.
04.08.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
A high bar to set aside statutory demands to enforce adjudication determinations under the Construction Contracts Act 2002
The “pay now argue later” principle underpins the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA).  The recent decision of C&R Property Development Ltd v MR Civil Ltd confirms the importance of this pr...
31.07.2020 Posted in Construction Law
Design life in the spotlight
Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick [2020] EWHC 1523 (TCC) In 2009, Blackpool Borough Council (Principal), as principal, contracted with Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd (Contractor), as head contracto...
COVID-19 and the Future of Force Majeure
Not since Y2K have force majeure clauses been of so much focus.
Shareholder Agreements:  The Corporate “Pre-nup”
You’ve got a great idea for a business and you’re pumped to get to work. 
23.06.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Company 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.