Dishonesty exclusion in PI policies: further refinement from the NZ Court of Appeal

/
Dishonesty exclusion in PI policies: further refinement from the NZ Court of Appeal

Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Mark Donald Withers  [2016] NZCA 618

The Court of Appeal has recently reconsidered the interpretation of the dishonesty exclusion in a professional indemnity policy. In finding for Zurich, the Court gave greater clarity to how the test will be applied, particularly to the relationship between breaches of the insured's professional standards and objective dishonesty.

Read More

Guidance on reinstatement conditions from UK Court of Appeal

/
Guidance on reinstatement conditions from UK Court of Appeal

Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v Western Trading Ltd  [2016] EWCA Civ 1003

The decision considered the enforceability of clauses in an insurance policy that made payment of reinstatement costs conditional on the insured first incurring these costs itself, and commencing work in a reasonable time. Also considered was the position where it is unclear if the insured genuinely intends to reinstate the damaged property.

Read More

No limitation of liability for bulk cargo under the Hague Rules

/
No limitation of liability for bulk cargo under the Hague Rules

Vinnlustodin HF v Sea Tank Shipping AS [2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm) (The Aqasia)

A recent decision of the Commercial Court in the UK has settled a decades-long dispute as to whether the term "unit" in Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules can be read as including units of measurement.

Read More

The importance of seamless cover

/
The importance of seamless cover

Trustees Executors Ltd v Fund Managers Canterbury Ltd [2016] NZHC 2194

The decision provides a useful commentary on the interpretation of a professional services exclusion in a D&O Policy, and is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive cover of the liability risks faced by directors.

Read More

Agreement to proceed on basis of rebuild binding on insurer

/
Agreement to proceed on basis of rebuild binding on insurer

Gidden v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2016] NZHC 948.

Mr. and Mrs. Gidden’s house suffered extensive damage during the Christchurch earthquakes. The couple lodged a complaint with the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) after a series of delays during which their insurer, IAG, assessed whether the house was a rebuild or a repair. To resolve the issues over the handling of the claim, the RAS arranged a meeting between the parties, the outcome of which was a typed and signed agreement whereby they agreed to “proceed in good faith on the basis of the house…being a rebuild” and to “reach agreement on costs.” The Court found that the outcome was intended to be legally binding.

Read More

Landlords can’t recover from negligent tenants

/
Landlords can’t recover from negligent tenants

HOLLER & ROUSE v OSAKI & ANOR [2016] NZCA 130, 15 April 2016.

In 2009, a tenant of a house, Mr Osaki, negligently caused a fire that substantially damaged the house he was renting. His landlords were indemnified by AMI for the cost of repairs to the house. AMI exercised its subrogation rights to claim the repair costs from the tenants.

Read More