19.09.2016

Nitya Nand & Sunita Nand v Tower Insurance Ltd [2016] NZCA 1455

This case concerned a defendant’s summary judgment application by Tower against its insured, Mr and Mrs Nand.  The Nands’ policy contained an exclusion for losses arising from wilful acts or omissions by “you”.  Tower argued that “you” included the Nands’ children, which entitled it to decline a claim for fire damage while the insured property was rented to their son.  Tower’s application was declined.

Background

In 1999, the Nands bought a rental property in Flatbush, Manukau and insured it with Tower.  On 1 July 2012 there was a fire at the property and the house was extensively damaged.  The Nands’ adult son had been living in the house with his partner and young child, allegedly as a tenant.

The Nands accepted that, without their knowledge, their son let other people on to the property who began manufacturing methamphetamine and that a fire was accidentally started as a result of something going wrong in the process.

Cover under the insurance policy – The meaning of “you”

The policy defined “you” to include “the insured, your spouse and your children normally residing” at the premises.  Tower claimed the son was a child of the insured normally residing at the premises and therefore fell under the definition of “you” for the purposes of the policy.  It followed, under Tower’s reasoning, that the policy excluded cover since the fire damage was due to an “unreasonable, criminal and reckless or wilful act or omission … by you”.  Tower also relied on the policy conditions that the insured would “not cause or facilitate loss or damage … by any unreasonable, reckless or wilful act or omission”.

The Court found the son was not an “insured” under the policy – the only property insured was that of the landlord, not the tenant.

Nonetheless, the Court considered what the situation would have been had the son been co-insured.  With the possible exception of jointly owned property, misconduct by one insured will not deprive another innocent insured of cover (relying on Maulder v National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 NZLR 351).  In the present case, the Court concluded that, since the deliberate misconduct of an insured would not trigger exclusions depriving another innocent insured of cover, “the same must also apply when the person causing the loss is not insured under the policy at all”.

Further, Tower could not rely on a breach of the requirement not to recklessly cause or facilitate loss or damage.  That condition applied to “you and any person in charge of your property with your permission”.  This last language could have encompassed the son.  However, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the exclusion for deliberate damage caused by anyone residing at the premises, which contained a specific carve-out for damage deliberately caused by tenants.  The more specific language of the exclusion and its exception was found to prevail over the more general wording of the policy condition.

Finally, there was insufficient evidence to meet the summary judgment standard that the son had caused or facilitated the fire by unreasonable, reckless or wilful acts of omissions.

The Court dismissed Tower’s summary judgment application and awarded the Nands costs.

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

iStock
Parker v Magnum Hire: A new era of personal grievance remedies awarded in the Employment Relations Authority?
If you heard a sudden loud noise last week – no it wasn’t a jet plane flying overhead, it was the gasp of employment lawyers across New Zealand when the Employment Relations Authority published it...
26.02.2024 Posted in Employment
employment dictionary website
Banding together: the Court’s new approach to awards for injury to feelings
One of the key remedies available to an employee who has successfully established a personal grievance in the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) or the Employment Court (Court) is compensation...
23.02.2024 Posted in Employment
Trust liability under the Health and Safety at Work Act
WorkSafe New Zealand v RH & JY Trust & ors
21.02.2024 Posted in Health & Safety & Private Wealth
New year, new government, new policies: what’s on the cards for employment law in 2024?
As we have been known to say once or twice (okay, maybe every year!) employment law never stands still. New governments can also spell major change, and this time is no exception. As you will likely h...
14.02.2024 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Family Hands Paper Dolls Wide BW
Variations of Trust: Court’s Position Confirmed
Last year we published an article titled Variations of Trust: Obtaining the Court’s Blessing on the High Court decision in Re Jury Family Trusts [2022] NZHC 568 (Re Jury). In Re Jury, the High C...
05.02.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
Employment Law Wide
Trials and tribulations of trial periods – what an employer needs to know
If, like us, you were doing last minute Christmas shopping, you might have missed that the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act 2023 (Act) received Royal Assent and came into effect shor...
19.01.2024 Posted in Employment
iStock  Warning Speech Bubble Colour
A warning about warnings
It can be tempting for an employer to think that it is only a dismissal that requires a disciplinary process, and that a warning or a final warning can be issued simply by notifying the employee.  Be...
13.12.2023 Posted in Employment
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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