07.08.2023

Supreme Court confirms orthodox approach when interpreting scope of exclusion clause

Napier City Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited [2022] NZCA 422

Background

This case arose out of a building defect claim against Napier City Council (the Council) by the Body Corporate and owners of units in a multi-unit apartment block called the Waterfront Apartments in Napier.  The proceeding was filed in 2013 and the claim against the Council involved a mix of weathertightness, structural and fire-proofing defects.  The Council notified the claim to its insurer RiskPool, which declined cover for the entire claim based on a weathertightness exclusion clause.

In 2019 the Council settled with the building owners at mediation and paid a global figure in full and final settlement for the cost of the works required to remedy weathertight and non-weathertight building defects as well as structural and fire safety compliance failures.  The global settlement agreement did not make any specific allocations in relation to the matters settled.  In view of the limited capacity of the other defendants to pay, the Council paid $12.355 million out of the total settlement of $13.65 million.

The Council sued RiskPool for breach of contract and sought a contribution to the settlement payment.

In the High Court, the insurers’ decision to decline indemnity was upheld.  The Court found a single claim including a mix of defects could not be broken down into its component parts with some being excluded and others covered.

The Court of Appeal ruled otherwise.  It held that the exclusion clause only removed cover for the claim to the extent that the Council’s liability allegedly arose directly or indirectly out of, or in respect of weathertightness defects.  This meant the Council’s liability for other defects which fell within cover were not excluded.

Supreme Court’s decision

In the Supreme Court the parties’ arguments focussed on different words and phrases used in the exclusion clause to support their positions.  RiskPool argued that the focus of the exclusion clause was upon the “Claim” and not upon the factual source or causation of the Claim.  It maintained that “alleging” and/or “in respect of” were ‘qualifying links’ in the clause which did not refer to a causative connection.  The Council submitted RiskPool’s approach ignored words in the clause, its arguments about “qualifying links” were contrary to principle and that the divisibility of claims was the orthodox approach. 

The Supreme Court agreed that RiskPool’s interpretation erred in focusing unduly on one part of the exclusion clause, observing RiskPool’s approach required dissection of the clause to focus unduly on individual words.  The Court observed the definition of “Claim” was not within the clause itself – it appeared elsewhere and was a general multi-purpose definition, but concluded: “When read as part of the whole clause and in context, that word simply cannot carry the weight argued for by RiskPool.”  It also considered the result advanced by RiskPool was “textually awkward”

The Court concluded there was nothing in the language of the exclusion clause which would convey to the reader that divisible parts of a claim that do not relate to weathertightness are excluded.  It said “[c]learer language would be required to exclude liability for that part of the claim relating to non-weatherightness defects which would otherwise have come within the insuring clause.”

What to Remember

The key takeaway from the decision is that when interpreting exclusion clauses beware of giving emphasis to a word or phrase if that creates an unnatural meaning to the text.  Even a defined term may not be strictly applied if an alternative and clearer meaning can be established from the exclusion clause as a whole.

If you have any questions about insurance policy wordings, please get in touch with our Insurance Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

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

Flooded car
Flooding due to overland flow paths and damaged drainage
Persistent heavy rainfall across the country often results in damage to property due to flooding caused by overland flow paths and defective drainage.  But who is responsible for the cost of the dama...
17.06.2025 Posted in Climate Change & Property
Understanding Indirect Privacy Notification: What you need to know
The Privacy Amendment Bill (the Bill), if passed into law, will require agencies to notify individuals when their personal information is collected from a source other than the individual themselves, ...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Employment
iStock  Succession Plan medium
Family Ties: Intra-Family Succession and Exit Planning
As the second instalment in a series of articles looking at the generational wealth transition and its impacts on business succession in New Zealand, Ben Hickson (partner, Corporate & Commercial...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Private Wealth
Employment law at a glance – June 2025
If you are anything like us, you will be shocked to realise that we are halfway into 2025. As time has been marching on, so too have employment law developments – and there have certainly been quite...
05.06.2025 Posted in Employment
HH Pg  Forrest uncropped
ETS Update: Climate Change Commission recommends minor tweaks to ETS Settings
Last month, He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission (the Commission) released its annual advice to the Government on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) settings for the period 2026 to 2030 (Advice)....
HS Scrabble Med Crop Vignette
Health and safety learnings for landowners following latest Whakaari decision
The leasing and subleasing of land, buildings and infrastructure is commonplace in New Zealand business and commerce, but what happens when something goes wrong? Do landowners have health and safety o...
08.05.2025 Posted in Health & Safety
Navigating Settlor Intentions in Trust Restructures – Legler v Formannoij [2024] NZSC 173
In Legler v Formannoij the surviving widow Marina Formannoij, was forced to navigate the complexities of two trusts that were part of her late husband Ricco Legler’s estate plan: the Kaahu Trust (wh...
08.05.2025 Posted in Private Wealth
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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