9.05.2018

van der Noll v Sovereign Assurance Co Ltd [2013] NZHC 3051

Mr van der Noll was a member of a group insurance scheme for income protection.  He suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which prevented him from working in his former occupation.  Under his policy, Sovereign could cease payment of his benefit after two years if it considered on reasonable grounds that he was not suffering from a total disability.  Sovereign obtained expert opinions from an occupational physician and a vocational assessor, and decided that Mr van der Noll was no longer entitled to a benefit.

The Court identified the following principles that an insurer should follow when making a decision on whether an insured is entitled to a benefit:

  1. The insurer should interpret the policy to determine the correct questions in issue.
  2. Where an expert opinion is sought, the expert should be provided with all the relevant information.
  3. The expert must be asked the correct questions.  However this does not require the insurer to request the expert to analyse specific policy provisions, where the insurer is not delegating the determination to be made to the expert.
  4. The insurer is bound by a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
  5. The insurer must have due regard for the interests of the insured, but this duty is contractual, not fiduciary.
  6. Where a state of affairs governing the entitlement to a benefit turns on the opinion of the insurer, the insurer must act reasonably in considering the matter and forming its opinion.
  7. The insured bears the onus of proof in both the original claim and any review application.

The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the insurer.  If the insurer has addressed itself to the right questions and taken account of the relevant information available to it, and the decision reached is reasonably open to the insurer, the Court cannot intervene.  This test is similar to the Wednesbury principle applied in judicial review applications.

Back to Summary Table

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

Contractors, Caveats, and Retention of Title clauses
The High Court in Development Construction Company Ltd v Mackenzie [2021] NZHC 546 has confirmed  that retention of title (RoT) clauses do not provide contractors with a caveatable interest. This dec...
How to break up with a suspected money launderer: High Court Guidance
The High Court has provided guidance on how to end a business relationship with a suspected money launderer.
15.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Adjudication When In Administration
In Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd the High Court highlighted the interplay between insolvency and construction adjudication issues.
15.04.2021 Posted in Construction
What happens if my employee refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccination?
While there are enough COVID-19 vaccinations to inoculate each New Zealander, it has been reported that some ‘frontline’ workers have refused to get vaccinated, or have failed to attend vaccinatio...
14.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
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.
-->