In contract works claims, a frequent dispute – for both insurers and insureds – is precisely where to draw the line between cover for new “damage” and excluded construction defects. The damage and defects are often interlinked and untangling the issue involves technical evidence.
Read MoreIn litigation, time can be everything. Limitation periods set strict deadlines for bringing claims – if a plaintiff is out of time, the claim may be thrown out, even if the claim is strong.
Read MoreThe Fletcher Construction Company Ltd v Chubb & BHSI [2023] NZHC 943
The New Zealand High Court recently looked at whether a third-party liability policy provided any cover to a head contractor for its liability to the principal under an indemnity clause in the construction contract. This decision provides helpful guidance on the applicable legal principles.
Read MoreMoorhouse Commercial Park v Vero Insurance [2022] NZHC 3260
The High Court has delivered its judgment in a proceeding brought by the owner of a group of industrial buildings damaged by the Canterbury earthquakes, in a decision that will be welcomed by insurers.
In August last year we reported on the High Court decision of Grice J in Napier City Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited (Riskpool). In that decision, Her Honour held that the Council was not indemnified under its professional indemnity insurance policy with Riskpool as the claim against it was in respect of both weathertightness and non-weathertightness defects. Consequently, the policy’s weathertightness exclusion clause applied to the entire claim. At the time, we commented that the decision may have come as a surprise to many in the insurance industry as it went against the approach taken by many insurers, which was to differentiate between weathertightness and non-weathertightness defects when considering indemnity. It was only when there was a defect which was caused or contributed to by an excluded peril that was excluded from cover.
Read MoreBNZ Branch Properties Limited v Wellington City Council [2021] NZHC 1058
The High Court has recently ruled that a contribution claim by a defendant against third party engineers was not time-barred by the 10-year longstop period in the Building Act 2004.
Read MoreSiemens (New Zealand) Limited v Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Ltd [2017] NZHC 287
An interesting point highlighted by this case is that for larger projects, insurance obligations set out in the policy and contractual documents do not always sit well together. In this case a master supply agreement between the two parties had two different clauses limiting liability to two different amounts.
Read More
The Supreme Court has refused to strike out a negligence claim against a manufacturer of faulty cladding, leaving a real possibility that manufacturers of building products may be liable to end users.
Read MoreAt Fee Langstone we’re experts in the field of insurance law. We are a team of skilled litigation lawyers, able to work with you to provide strategies and robust solutions, fast.
Auckland
Level 18, 51 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010
Tel. +64 9 373 0050
reception@feelangstone.co.nz
Christchurch
Level 1, 83 Lichfield Street
Christchurch 8011
Tel: +64 3 371 4622
