|
Top
CGU Insurance
Limited v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd
Australia: High Court of Australia: Gleeson CJ, Calliman, Crennan, Heydon,
Kirby JJ.: [2007] HCA 36: 29 August 2007
Insurance: cover for civil liability
claims: potential liability to investors arising out of misconduct of financial
advisers for which insured responsible: Insured told to act as a prudent
uninsured: Insured proposes settlement with investors without need for legal
proceedings: insurer agrees "in principle": insured settles with
investors without confirmation from insurer that it accepts liability for the
payments: Whether insurer liable to indemnify the insured in respect of
reasonable settlement amounts: Whether settlement amounts were reasonable: –
Relevance of the requirement to act with utmost good faith in s 13 of the Insurance
Contracts Act 1984 (Cth).
Insurance: Requirement to act with utmost good faith in s 13 of the Insurance
Contracts Act 1984 (Cth): Meaning of utmost good faith: Whether lack of
utmost good faith means only dishonesty: Whether utmost good faith may require
insurer to act with due regard to insured’s legitimate interests of as well as
its own: Whether insurer’s delay in accepting or rejecting liability amounted
to a lack of utmost good faith: Relevance of reciprocity: Whether insurer could
invoke the insured’s lack of utmost good faith if insurer had failed to act
with utmost good faith: Whether insured’s lack of diligence and acting for its
own interests amounted to lack of utmost good faith.
Estoppel: Estoppel by convention: Whether insurer represented that insured would
not be required to prove its liability to the investors: Whether insured relied
on the representation to its detriment
R+V
Verischerung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA
English Commercial Court: Gloster J, DBE: [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm): 27 January
2006
Colin Edelman QC and Charles Dougherty (instructed by LeBoeuf Lamb Greene &
MacRae) for the Claimant, R+V
Hugo Page QC (instructed by Penningtons) for the Defendant, Risk Insurance
REINSURANCE: RECOVERABLE HEADS OF DAMAGE: STANDARD FOR PROOF OF LOSS: INTERNAL
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF TIME EXPENSES AND OVERHEADS EXPENDED IN DEALING WITH
CONSPIRACY
Bayswater
Carriers Pte Ltd v. QBE Insurance (International) Pte Ltd
Singapore High Court: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J: 29 September 2005: [2005] SGHC
185
MARINE INSURANCE – INSTITUTE TIME CLAUSES (HULLS) 1.10.83 – WHETHER LOSS WAS
BY PIRACY OR VIOLENT THEFT BY PERSONS FROM OUTSIDE THE TUG
Lumbermens
Mutual Casualty Co v Bovis Lend Lease Limited
English High Court: Colman J.: [2004] EWHC 2197 (Comm): 5 October 2004
INSURANCE: PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT: CLAIM BY
CONTRACTOR AGAINST EMPLOYER: COUNTERCLAIMS BY EMPLOYER AGAINST CONTRACTOR:
GLOBAL SETTLEMENT: BASIS OF SETTLEMENT NOT STATED: WHETHER INSURED LOSS
"ASCERTAINED": WHETHER LOSS COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
Midland
Mainline Limited and others v Eagle Star Insurance Co Limited
English Court of Appeal: Brooke V-P and Jacob LJ., Sir Martin Nourse: 28
July 2004
INSURANCE: DENIAL OF ACCESS TO RAILWAY TRACK: FINANCIAL LOSS: EXCLUSION OF WEAR
AND TEAR: WHETHER WEAR AND TEAR UNDERLYING STATE OF AFFAIRS OR PROXIMATE CAUSE
OF LOSS: MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE: WHERE EXCLUDED PERIL WAS ONE PROXIMATE
CAUSE
IF
P&C Insurance Ltd v Silversea Cruises Ltd & Others
English Court of Appeal: Ward, Mummery and Rix LJJ: 2 July 2004
INSURANCE: LOSS OF INCOME AND EXTRAORDINARY COSTS POLICY: CRUISE SHIPS: EFFECT
OF EVENTS OF 11 SEPTEMBER 2001: WHETHER INDEMNITY LIMIT APPLIED PER SHIP OR TO
THE FLEET AS A WHOLE: "EACH SHIP TO BE A SEPARATE INSURANCE: CONCURRENT
CAUSES: MEANING OF "ACT OF WAR"
Horbury
Building Systems Ltd v Hampden Insurance NV
English Court of Appeal: Peter Gibson, Mance and Keene LJJ.: 7 April 2004
INSURANCE: PRODUCT LIABILITY INSURANCE: COVER "IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE"
TO PROPERTY: CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS: EXTENT TO WHICH LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
LOSS COVERED
Kastor
Navigation Co Limited & Anor v AXA Global Risks (UK) Limited and Ors
English Court of Appeal: Tuckey, Rix and Neuberger LJJ.: 10 March 2004
SHIPPING: INSURANCE: CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS: ACTUAL TOTAL LOSS: INSURED TOTAL
LOSS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY UNINSURED TOTAL LOSS: PROXIMATE CAUSE: NOTICE OF
ABANDONMENT NOT SERVED: WHETHER SERVICE OF NOTICE A CONDITION PRECEDENT:
DECISION TO ABANDON: INSURED’S CONDUCT: SUCCESSIVE LOSSES: UNREPAIRED DAMAGE:
PARTIAL LOSS: COSTS
Kastor
Navigation Co Ltd. and Atlantic Bank of New York v. AGF M.A.T & Others
Commercial Court: Tomlinson J.: 4 December 2002
SHIPPING: INSURANCE: CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS:
ACTUAL TOTAL LOSS: ACCIDENTAL FIRE IN ENGINE ROOM: VESSEL SUNK SHORTLY
AFTERWARDS: FIRE NOT PROXIMATE CAUSE OF SINKING: SINKING CAUSED BY WATER
ENTERING VESSEL IN UNKNOWN MANNER: NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT NOT SERVED: WHETHER
SERVICE OF NOTICE A CONDITION PRECEDENT: NO CONCEIVABLE BENEFIT TO UNDERWRITERS:
S.62(7) MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906: TRANSFER BY OPERATION OF LAW
Royal
& Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v Dornoch Ltd & Others
English Commercial Court: Aikens J.: [2004] EWHC 803 (Comm): 22 April 2004
INSURANCE: REINSURANCE: CLAIMS CONTROL CLAUSE: 72-HOUR NOTICE
CLAUSE: "KNOWLEDGE OF ANY LOSS": MEANING OF "LOSS": MEANING
OF "KNOWLEDGE"
Lloyds
TSB General Insurance Holdings Ltd and Others v The Lloyds Bank Group Insurance
Co Limited: Abbey National Plc v Alan Godfrey Lee & Others (2001)
English House of Lords: Lords Nicholls, Hoffmann, Hobhouse, Millet and
Walker: 31 July 2003
BANKERS’ COMPOSITE INSURANCE POLICY: LIABILITY FOR MIS-SELLING: WHETHER
RESULTING FROM “any single act or
omission (or related series of acts or omission)”: aggregation: aggregation
clause: single underlying cause or common origin: whether equivalent to single
“originating cause”
Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings Ltd V Lloyds Bank Group Insurance
Abbey National Plc V Alan Godfrey Lee & Others
English Court of Appeal: Potter, Longmore LJJ, Lady Justice Hale: Unreported:
8 November 2001
INSURANCE POLICIES: CONSTRUCTION: PENSIONS MIS-SELLING: LARGE NUMBER OF
CLAIMS: DEDUCTIBLE AGGREGATION CLAUSE: SERIES OF CLAIMS RESULTING FROM RELATED
SERIES OF ACTS OR OMISSIONS: UNDERLYING CAUSE: COMMON ORIGIN
Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge
Australia: New South Wales Court of Appeal; Giles, Heydon JJA and Grove J;
(2002) 12 ANZ Ins Cas 61-521;25 March 2002
INSURANCE — GENERAL INSURANCE — STORM DAMAGE — INDEMNITY — COLLAPSE OF
PART OF BUILDING — WHETHER INSURED ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY VALUE OF BUILDING
VIEWED ALONE AS DISTINCT FROM TOGETHER WITH THE LAND ON WHICH IT STOOD —
WHETHER INSURED WORSE OFF AS RESULT OF THE COLLAPSE — WHETHER INSURED HAD
PROVED COSTS OF REMOVAL OF DEBRIS
Budgett Sugars v Norwich Union Insurance Limited
English Commercial Court: Moore-Bick J.: 15 May 2002
INSURANCE: STANDARD FORM PUBLIC AND PRODUCT LIABILITY POLICY: CONSTRUCTION OF
"EVENT" IN POLICY: EVENT DEFINED AS LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY:
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS NOT COVERED
Glowrange Ltd v. CGU Insurance Plc
English High Court: QBD Commercial Court: Colman J:
Unreported: 26 June 2001
HULL FAILURE : UNEXPLAINED : TOTAL LOSS : INSTITUTE YACHT CLAUSES 1.11.85 :
CAUSATION : INSURED PERIL : PERILS OF THE SEAS : VESSEL IN GOOD CONDITION :
BALANCE OF PROOF : THE POPI M : THE MAREL : REASON FOR WATER INGRESS : SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Seashore Marine SA v. The Phoenix Assurance Plc and Others
English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Aikens J.
May 2001: Unreported
HULL INSURANCE: LIABILITY TO PAY SALVAGE: INSTITUTE TIME CLAUSES (HULLS)
1.10.83: INSURED PERILS: PROXIMATE CAUSE: BURDEN OF PROOF
Back to Top
|