Insurance Law Cases
As the insurance industry grapples with challenges brought forth by technological advancements, regulatory shifts, and the global economy, it becomes increasingly crucial for legal practitioners to stay well-versed in the complexities of the law. Our past cases encompass various topics, from policy coverage disputes and indemnity claims to contractual issues and duty of care. By delving into these cases, we shed light on the factors that influence insurance law in Australia, paving the way for a deeper understanding of the potential implications for insurers and insured parties. In our pursuit of providing exceptional legal counsel, we recognise that no two cases are the same. As such, our dedicated solicitors meticulously analyse each case, ensuring we have the most up-to-date knowledge to serve our clients effectively. By examining the intricacies of past rulings and exploring the novel legal theories put forth in these cases, we strive to develop innovative strategies that cater to the unique needs of our clients. Our case studies also underscore the importance of navigating the delicate balance between the rights and obligations of insurers and policyholders. By delving into the nuances of policy wording, contractual interpretation, and precedents, we illustrate the intricate web of factors contributing to resolving insurance disputes. Through the lens of these cases, we showcase our expertise in identifying the subtle yet crucial elements that can ultimately tip the scales in favour of our clients. In presenting these cases, we aim to foster a culture of continuous learning and professional development within our firm and among the broader legal community. By sharing examples of outcomes we’ve achieved, we seek to promote a deeper understanding of insurance law and its broader implications for businesses and individuals. These insurance law cases serve as a testament to our commitment to excellence and our relentless pursuit of knowledge. We believe that by fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities of insurance law, we can better serve our clients and contribute to the ongoing evolution of this critical field. We invite you to explore our collection of past cases, confident that our professional and authoritative insights will equip you with the tools and understanding necessary to navigate the intricate world of insurance law in Australia.
Read MoreInsurance Law
Cover not provided for steps taken to rectify property damage arising out of an occurrence: Epsilon Insurance Broking Services Pty Ltd v Liberty Managing Agency Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 20
23 January 2020, Federal Court of Australia – Allsop J
Ditchfield Contracting Pty Ltd and Ditchfield Contractors Pty Ltd (Ditchfield) were engaged by the Newcastle City Council regarding the construction at a waste management facility of a landfill cell. After an accident that occurred in September 2016 at the worksite, diesel spread across the adjoining property and along the route of an electricity easement to a creek. Ditchfield was subsequently charged with a pollution offence by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and incurred costs in cleaning up and remediating the spill path.
Insurance Company found to not have acted reasonably and fairly in declining a claim: Metlife Insurance Limited v MX [2019] NSWCA 228
16 September 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Meagher, Gleeson and Payne JJA
MetLife Insurance Ltd (MetLife) issued to FSS Trustee Corporation a Blue Ribbon Policy, as trustee of the First State Superannuation Scheme.
RELEVANT POLICY PROVISION:
Entitlement to benefits for total and permanent disablement (TPD) if, having been “absent from” his or her occupation “through injury or illness for six consecutive months”, the insured member “provided proof to [the insurer’s] satisfaction that [the member had] become incapacitated to such an extent as to render [him or her] unlikely ever to engage in any gainful profession, trade or occupation for which [he or she was] reasonably qualified by reason of education, training or experience”.
Exclusion Clause successfully applied to conduct carried out prior to the attachment of the insurance: Swashplate Pty Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company T/as Liberty International Underwriters [2020] FCA 15
16 January 2020, Federal Court Of Australia – Allsop J
Relevant Policies
Swashplate Pty Ltd (Swashplate) acquired two helicopters located in the United States. At 2pm AEST on the 19th of May 2018, Swashplate’s agent at Austbrokers sent two placement slips to Liberty International Underwriters (Liberty). Insurance cover was then confirmed, the policy taking effect from 19 May 2018 and incorporated the 2009 Institute Cargo Clauses (A) (2009 ICC(A)). Clause 4.3 of the 2009 ICC(A) regarded packing or preparation of the subject matter, and cl 8.1 of the 2009 ICC(A) concerned the attachment of the policy and duration. Three conditions were also contained on the master slip that reflected a Helicopter Single Transit endorsement (HST endorsement) that was contained in the Liberty Policy, and included a “static cover” extension for a period of up to five days prior to loading.
Application for leave denied - no issue of principle, question of general public importance or injustice reasonably clear: Voitenko v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2019] NSWCA 229
16 September 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Meagher and McCallum JJA
Relevant policy
Mr and Mrs Voitenko conducted business at a warehouse in Mortdale, and had taken out a contents insurance policy for the sum of $1.1million with Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd (Zurich).
Application for leave denied - no issue of principle, question of general public importance or injustice reasonably clear: Voitenko v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2019] NSWCA 229
16 September 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Meagher and McCallum JJA
Relevant policy
Mr and Mrs Voitenko conducted business at a warehouse in Mortdale, and had taken out a contents insurance policy for the sum of $1.1million with Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd (Zurich).
Insurance Company found to have acted reasonably and fairly in the assessment of a claim: Newling v MetLife Insurance Limited [2019] NSWCA 149
21 June 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Bell P, Leeming JA and Emmett AJA
Relevant policy provision
MetLife Insurance Ltd (MetLife) issued a policy of insurance to the FSS Trustee Corporation (FSS), as trustee of the First State Superannuation Scheme, which provided superannuation benefits for members of the NSW Police Force. Under the policy, if an insured member suffered total and permanent disablement (TPD) MetLife would pay FSS a sum in respect of the insured member.
Exclusion found to operate to deny indemnity: XL Insurance Co SE v BNY Trust Company of Australia Limited [2019] NSWCA 215
2 September 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Bell P, Gleeson JA and Emmett AJA
MMJ Real Estate (WA) Pty Ltd (MMJ) conducted business as a realtor and property valuer. In late 2010, BNY Trust Company of Australia (BNY) retain MMJ to provide valuations in respect of certain strata lots in Rockingham. These valuations were prepared and signed on behalf of MMJ by its director, Mr Hosking, and reviewed and counter-signed by an employee, Mr Volk.
Multiple wrongful acts held to constitute a single claim: Bank of Queensland Limited v AIG Australia Limited [2019] NSWCA 190
6 August 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal – Bathurst CJ, Macfarlan and White JJA
The Bank of Queensland Ltd (BOQ) and BOQ’s agent, DDH Graham Ltd (DDH), had representative proceedings brought against them by Petersen Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (Petersen) on behalf of itself and other investors, who were behalf of former clients of Sherwin Financial Planners Pty Ltd (SFP). The investors unwittingly invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme which was conducted by SFP utilizing BOQ bank accounts, and alleged that they suffered loss as a result of BOQ’s failure to protect the investors’ interests when BOQ became aware of SFP’s fraud. The claims were based on BOQ’s vicarious liability for the acts of DDH, and were attributable to a wrongful act by DDH in paying money out of each claimant’s individual Money Market Deposit Account (MMDA) to SFP, with knowledge that SFP was using the funds received in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
Was the insurer required to indemnify the insured for damage? Bechini v IUS Pty Limited (in liq) [2019] NSWSC 427
16 April 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales – Rothman J
M&R Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd (M&R) was an agent of Dual Australia Pty Ltd (Dual) which was the Australian subsidiary of Lumley Insurance (now WFI Insurance Ltd).
Commercial Law
Exclusions operate successfully to exclude policy cover: DIF II - Global Co-Investment Fund LP v Babcock & Brown International Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 527
13 May 2019, Supreme Court of New South Wales – Ball J
WHO IS BABCOCK & BROWN LIMITED
Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) was a specialist investment and advisory firm, which collapsed in 2009. The businesses included a funds management business that was carried on through DIF Capital Partners Ltd, formerly known as Babcock & Brown Direct Investment Fund Ltd (the Manager) and its Investment Committed comprised Messrs Topfer, Green, Neilson, Nicholson and Prof Officer. BBL held operating and investment subsidiaries through Babcock & Brown International Pty Ltd (BBIPL), which was an intermediate holding company, and Babcock & Brown LP (BBLP), which was the main operating company through which BBL held assets in the United States.
Awards We Have Won
Law Firm Australia
2019 | 2020 | 2022
Insurance Law Firm Annual Awards Winner Australia 2023
Awards of Excellence 2023
Commercial Law Firm Australia
2018
2018
02 9011 5638
Book a time for a free phone consultation to discuss your needs with us.
We offer in-depth knowledge and commitment to ensuring our clients receive the fairest treatment.
