9.05.2018

JCS Cost Management Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [2015] NZCA 524

This was an appeal from a summary judgment[1] dismissing a claim for civil liability cover under a professional indemnity policy on the basis the claim made against the insured was not in connection with his professional business practice.  It highlights the need for insureds to consider carefully the nature of the services they provide, and whether their policy covers all of their business activities.

Background

The proceeding arose out of litigation concerning the purchase of a leaky home.[2]  Mr Johnston, a director of JCS, a quantity surveying and project management company, attended an open home with a client in the hope of securing future project management work.  The client had indicated that if she purchased the property, she intended to carry out significant renovations.

Following the purchase, the client retained JCS and began the renovations.  Weathertightness issues were identified.  The client and her husband sued Auckland Council, which joined Mr Johnston as a third party.  The Council alleged that the purchasers bought the house in reliance on pre-purchase advice given by Mr Johnston as a “building appraiser”.  The Council’s claim failed on the facts.

Mr Johnston incurred costs defending the Council’s claim which exceeded the costs award.  He brought a claim against QBE to recover the difference in costs under his professional indemnity insurance policy, plus compensation for damage to JCS’s business and general damages.  QBE rejected the claim and sought summary judgment, on the basis that the Council’s claim was not connected to JCS’s project management business.  The High Court found in favour of QBE.

Cover under the insurance policy

The insurance policy included two significant clauses:

  • QBE shall indemnify the Insured for any Valid Claim subject to the terms of this Policy.
  • In addition, QBE shall pay Costs and Expenses incurred with the written consent of QBE in the defence or settlement of any Valid Claim, up to the Limit of Indemnity or $1M, whichever is the lesser.

Both of the clauses contain the term “Valid Claim”, defined as a claim “alleging Civil Liability by any act, error, omission or conduct … in connection with the Insured’s Professional Business Practice”.  “Professional Business Practice” was defined as the Insured’s business of quantity surveyor and project manager.  “Project Manager” was further defined as “the provision of consultancy, certification or project coordination services for construction or development of projects where… those services are rendered for remuneration and the services fall within the insured’s Professional Business Practice”.

Mr Johnston was only entitled to defence costs under the policy if the claim made by the Council would – if successful – be a “Valid Claim”.  It was accepted that Mr Johnson attended the open home in connection with his business.  However the majority of the Court held that a Valid Claim required a causal connection between Mr Johnston’s notional liability for the pre-purchase advice (“the act, error, omission or conduct”) and the Professional Business Practice covered by the policy.  “Professional Business Practice” was narrowly defined: it only covered consultancy services for construction or development projects where the services were rendered for remuneration.  Free advice given during a marketing exercise for a prospective project did not fall within this definition.

The majority accordingly held that the Council’s claim against Mr Johnston was not a Valid Claim and dismissed the appeal against summary judgment.  The minority judge, Miller J, took the view that the word “by” could encompass a meaning wider than a direct causal link, and would have left the interpretation of the policy to be determined at trial.

 Back to Summary Table

[1] QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Wild South Holdings Ltd [2014] NZHC 2718

[2] Johnson v Auckland Council [2013] NZHC 165; Johnson v Auckland Council [2013] NZCA 662.

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

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
Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019
The Marine team at Hesketh Henry have again contributed to Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019.
30.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
A Guide to Concurrent Delay
Hesketh Henry was pleased to host the New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors on 14 August 2018, where one of our construction partners, Nick Gillies, presented on concurrent delay.  The same pre...
22.08.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Update – New Zealand’s New Biofouling Standards
New Zealand has introduced a new standard requiring all vessels to have a “clean hull” on arrival in the country after 15  May 2018.[1]  The objective is to minimise the introduction of ...
21.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
No Longer Stumped: The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Sentencing Guidelines
The High Court at Auckland has released its first and much-awaited decision under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
21.08.2018 Posted in Health & Safety 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.