9.05.2018

Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Withers [2016] NZCA 618

In this appeal Zurich was entitled to rely on a dishonesty exclusion to decline PI cover for an insured’s liability under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA).  The insured, Mark Withers, was an accountant who had acted in breach of certain undertakings.  In reaching this decision, the court placed significant weight on professional accounting standards when assessing whether Mr Withers had acted dishonestly.

As a result, the judgment sum of $1.31m against Zurich was set aside, and judgment was instead entered in favour of the plaintiffs against Mr Withers personally.

Background

The plaintiffs (the Swindles) loaned $3m to the Vintage Group (Vintage). The funds were intended as working capital for Vintage’s wine business but were instead used to repay inter-company loans. Vintage only repaid $380,000 before being wound up, leaving the Swindles out of pocket for $2.62m.  They therefore looked to Vintage’s accountant, Mr Withers, to recover their loss.

It was a condition precedent of the loans that Mr Withers would be a mandatory signatory for Vintage’s costs account, and that account would be used solely to meet production costs.  Mr Withers gave undertakings to that effect.   The Swindles’ claim relied on those undertakings.

The High Court found Mr Withers liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA for failing to fulfil his undertakings.  However, damages were reduced by 50% to $1.31m for contributory negligence.

Mr Withers looked to his PI insurer, Zurich, to cover his liability.  In the High Court, Zurich’s grounds for declining the claim, including reliance on a dishonesty exclusion, were rejected and judgment for $1.31m was entered against Zurich.  Zurich appealed.

Dishonesty exclusions

The policy contained an automatic extension for liability under the FTA subject to a proviso that excluded cover for liability arising from dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, malicious or intentional conduct.

The policy also included a general dishonesty exclusion for liability “arising out of or connected with any actual or alleged dishonest … act or omission” or “with a reckless disregard for the consequences”.

Zurich relied on this dishonesty proviso and exclusion.

Appeal decision

The court considered that it able to determine on appeal whether these exclusions applied because the “primary facts” were not in material dispute and no question of credibility arose.

The test for determining dishonesty incorporates objective and subjective elements.  In summary, the relevant person is measured against an objective moral standard of what constitutes honest behaviour (the objective element), and they must also have acted with conscious impropriety (subjective element).

In this case, Mr Withers’ explanation that he had misunderstood the undertakings, rather than being dishonest, was not accepted on appeal.  Importantly, expert evidence of professional accounting standards and Mr Withers’ failures to meet those standards was “of singular relevance” in establishing the objective measure of dishonesty.  Particular reference was made to the NZICA Code of Ethics, including its Fundamental Principle of Integrity, which prohibits false or misleading statements.  An experienced accountant in his position, having regard to his role and his professional ethical obligations, would have understood the serious adverse consequence if his undertakings were wrong.

That appears to have been the correct result in a case for breach of an undertaking.  However, assessing dishonesty by reference to professional standards may be more difficult where the insured has breached other professional rules.

Return to Summary Table

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

Don’t Let Your Guard Down
The risks arising from the use of unguarded machinery are well-known to the point of being blindingly obvious.  The measures to ensure the safe operation of machinery are usually straightforward.  W...
19.02.2019 Posted in Health & Safety Law
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REFORM: Ten Guidelines the Government could Adopt
“We need to lead by example and if there are things that we can do to take a leadership position with that industry then we should be.” Prime Minister Ardern[1] As 2018 draws to a close a...
21.12.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Nearly there! Only a few days of 2018 left!
Just a quick note from the Hesketh Henry Employment team about what’s on the horizon:
18.12.2018 Posted in Employment Law
When did you last have your Ts & Cs reviewed?
The Commerce Commission recently announced that, after its investigation of jeweller Michael Hill Limited, the company was fined $169K for breaching its obligations in relation to the extended warrant...
13.12.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Time for Change (again!)
The winds of change are once again blowing through the employment law landscape.
10.12.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Summer Maritime Update
Welcome to our summer maritime update - November 2018
27.11.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
Employment Litigation Costs: In for a penny, in for a pound?
Vindication is frequently offered as a motivation for litigation.
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.