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

Updated Subcontract Agreement: SA-2017
The SA-2009 form of Subcontract Agreement is commonly used in the construction industry. It has undergone a review and a new SA-2017 form has been produced.
3.07.2018 Posted in Construction Law & Health & Safety Law
Distribution Agreements – 6 Key Considerations
While the exact nature and terms of a distribution agreement will vary between industries and jurisdictions, these 6 issues will always be important.
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Continued Importance of IP Protection for Manufacturers
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently released a report which identified key trends and challenges for the manufacturing sector (that report can be accessed here). Th...
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE – JUNE 2018
Recent Construction Law Decisions and Developments in New Zealand
18.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Updated Standard Consultancy Agreements
Two of the most commonly used standard agreements to engage consultants are the ACENZ / Engineering New Zealand (formerly IPENZ) Short Form Agreement (“SFA”) and the Conditions of Contract for Consultancy Services (“CCCS”).
5.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Managing Employees’ Mental Health Issues
Ministry of Health statistics confirm that during 2016, 169,454 people accessed mental health services in New Zealand. The law of averages suggests that most workplaces will – to a lesser or greater degree – be affected at some time by an employee’s mental health issue.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment Law & Health & Safety Law
Managing Medical Incapacity: Enough To Make You Feel Sick?
Managers and HR practitioners often tell us that dealing with employees who are genuinely too sick or injured to work is one of their least favourite tasks. Frankly, we can see why.
31.05.2018 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.