In this case, class action proceedings were brought against the insured claiming damages for property loss arising from the release of, or failure to release, water from two dams. The liability of the insured arose out of its agreement to provide flood management services to the dam operator.
The insured had been held vicariously liable
The Federal Court of Australia found in March 2023 that a claim under a Directors & Officers Policy was excluded because the director had gained personal advantage from his wrongful act to which he was not legally entitled when he concealed information to avoid cancellation of a contract held with another company owned and controlled
An Australian supreme court was faced with the question whether a sub-subcontractor was a named insured or agent of the named insured under a general liability policy relating to demolition work on a construction site where a fire attributed to the conduct of the sub-subcontractor caused damage. The court held that on the policy wording
The interpretation clause in a policy of insurance included a provision that “references to a statute law also includes all its amendments or replacements”. The Australian Quarantine Act had been replaced by the Bio Security Act, 2015 before the policy came into force but was held to be a replacement statute. The court
An Australian Supreme Court dismissed a claim for a contribution by one insurer against another because the earthmoving plant loader that was involved in the accident was being operated at the time as a mechanical tool of trade. A tool of trade was defined to mean “the operation of your motor vehicle whilst engaged
The insured company represented by its sole director and shareholder agreed to construct a residential aged care building on the property. The company failed to disclose at a material time that the company was in severe financial distress and unable to meet its obligations including tax obligations. The Australian Federal Court held that the failure
Where a Directors and Officers Policy provided that the insurer was not liable in connection with any claim based on “any circumstance which was known about by any of the Directors or Officers or Company prior to the Period of Insurance”, it was held that the word “circumstance” meant a circumstance
An Australian federal court held that where a director failed to disclose the financial distress of his company to the prejudice of the other contracting party under a constructions contract, the director “gained personal profit or advantage” for the purposes of an exclusion of the Directors and Officers Policy and no claim was
An Australian federal court held that an email intimating a claim against the insured under a Directors and Officers Liability Policy to a mailbox that was not attended to was nonetheless “received” by the insured for the purposes of the policy.
The claims made policy defined a ‘Claim’ as a “written notice
In this judgment, the relevant insurers relied on a limitation defence against the insured’s claims. All the parties agreed that the claim was in contract and had a limitation period of 6 years under the relevant legislation.
The question was the accrual date of the insured’s cause of action.
The court confirmed that the