17.12.2015

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
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

Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
Contract dictionary
Is ‘close enough’ OK? Reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event
The English Supreme Court’s decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18 has demonstrated the effect sanctions may have on a contract as a force majeure event and clarified the parameters of...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here?
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here? In King Crude Carriers S.A. & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors, the English and Wales Court of Appeal confi...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.