In an August 2024 Australian Federal Court judgment previously discussed here [“Hemiplegia” – Personal Accident and Sickness Policy (Australia) | Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot], the court found that the insured did not suffer from hemiplegia, and accordingly did not qualify for any benefits under the policy. The court nevertheless considered whether the insured’s
The primary issue the court had to determine in an August 2024 Australian Federal Court judgment was whether the insured’s “Bodily Injury” was “permanent hemiplegia” as defined by the insured’s Professional Sports Personal Accident and Sickness Insurance Policy.
The insured, a former professional football player had suffered a significant injury while
This blog was co-authored by Eric Geldenhuys, candidate attorney at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa
Markets globally have transitioned from USD LIBOR to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) and from British Pound Sterling LIBOR to the Sterling Overnight Index Average (SONIA). Following the global markets, South Africa is transitioning from JIBAR to the South
In this Massachusetts Appeal Court judgment the court was required to decide whether the costs of repairing or removing construction defects constituted “damages because of… ‘property damage’ ” within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy of a contractor building.
The homeowner experienced problems in the construction of their home by the insured
In July 2024 an industry guidance issued by the New York Department of Financial Services contains useful guidance (although not always directly related to our own Constitutional values) regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence Systems that External Consumer Data and Information Sources in insurance underwriting and pricing. The guidance arises from its commitment to innovation
The insured under a warranty and indemnity policy alleged that the exclusion of a breach of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws would result in a total exclusion of liability for a loss arising from the covered bribery and corruption warranty and that it should not be literally enforced. The court held that the exclusion did not