Ali v Insurance Australia Limited [2022] NSWCA 174

Court Supplied Summary

Insurance — property insurance — home and contents — where claim by policyholder made following break-in at home — where drafting in policy used the word ‘cover’ throughout — whether cause of action for damages arose at the time of property damage or upon determination of claim — whether claim against policy barred by Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14 — whether ‘cover’ where used in policy interchangeable with ‘indemnify’

Tim Castle SC appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Worth v HDI Global Specialty SE [2021] NSWCA 185

INSURANCE – where appellant’s house destroyed in a fire – where house used to operate a business – where house and business insured by respondent – where respondent granted conditional indemnity under deed of release – where respondent then denied liability on basis fire deliberately lit by insured – whether primary judge erred in finding appellant deliberately started fire
 
INSURANCE – measure of indemnity – where lack of reasonable despatch in rectifying property – whether indemnity for property damage payable on reinstatement basis
 
INSURANCE – damages – whether damages available for consequential loss arising from insurer’s breach of promise to indemnify – whether damages available for inconvenience and distress caused by breach

Tim Castle SC appeared for the Appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Worth v International Insurance Company of Hannover SE [2020] NSWSC 249

INSURANCE – house fire – claim for indemnity – whether insured responsible for fire – circumstantial case – good faith in taking of defence alleging lack of reasonable dispatch in rectifying property.

Tim Castle and Peter Mann represented the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

R & B Directional Drilling Pty Ltd (in liq) v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 458

INSURANCE – commercial general liability insurance – construction subcontract – defective works – distinction between loss of use and physical injury – distinction between “injury” and “physical injury” – no physical injury to tangible property – application dismissed

INSURANCE – exclusions – property in physical or legal control – tunnel was in physical control of applicant

INSURANCE – exclusions – faulty workmanship – insurer will not pay anything in respect of performing, correcting or improving any work undertaken – consequential costs

INSURANCE – exclusions – contractual liability – within ordinary limits of liability

Tim Castle represented the Applicants.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

QBE Underwriting Ltd as Managing Agent for Lloyds Syndicate 386 v Southern Colliery Maintenance Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 459

INSURANCE— Liability insurance — Exclusions — Where insured entered agreement with third party containing warranties and agreement to indemnify — Whether insured would have been liable in absence of such agreement.

INSURANCE —  Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) — Duty of disclosure — Scope and duration — Where insurer disclosed to insured letter warning of possible obligations to indemnify third parties —  Insurance Contracts Act 1984  (Cth), s 21.

CONTRACTS — Construction — Interpretation — “‘For’” — “‘In respect of’” — Whether contract of insurance extended to indemnity for adverse costs order.

Tim Castle represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Global Constructions Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v AIG Australia Limited [2018] FCA 98

INSURANCE — construction of policy — claim for direct financial loss — theft or fraudulent acts by a shareholder — limit of liability — set-off of shareholder's loan account against direct financial loss — set-off to be applied prior to applying limit of liability.

Tim Castle represented the Applicant.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Watkins Syndicate 0457 at Lloyds v Pantaenius Australia Pty Ltd and Others [2016] FCAFC 150

INSURANCE — Contribution — Claim for contribution between insurers — Where insured covered by one policy in terms and one by operation of s 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) — Whether suspension of cover an inherent limitation on claims — Whether s 54 operates only for benefit of insured — Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), s 54.

Tim Castle represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.