Strategic Property Holdings No. 3 Pty Ltd v Austbrokers RWA Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 178

Strategic Property Holdings No. 3 Pty Ltd v Austbrokers RWA Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 178

Suncorp's letter, read as a whole, indicated that subject to the Sub-Limit Suncorp considered itself liable to indemnify Strategic for loss referable to the roof's collapse, while excluding the direct cost of replacing the roof trusses and supports. The Insurance Gap must therefore be reduced by the direct costs of replacing the roof trusses identified in the reasons. Strategic's financing costs should be calculated by deducting from its schedule the invoices not attributable to the Broker's conduct, including the invoices identified by the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Action Against an Insurance Broker / Separate Question on Quantum of Damages Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Judgment to be entered for plaintiff for figure calculated in accordance with reasons.
Legal Topics
['insurance Broker Liability' 'quantum of Damages' 'rectification Costs' 'finance Costs' 'policy Sub Limit' 'faulty Design Exclusion']
['professional Negligence' 'insurance' 'damages'] ['insurance Broker Liability' 'quantum of Damages' 'rectification Costs' 'finance Costs' 'policy Sub Limit' 'faulty Design Exclusion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Action Against an Insurance Broker / Separate Question on Quantum of Damages Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["How much more Suncorp would have paid on Strategic's claim had the Policy had a sub-limit of $2 million rather than $200,000." 'Which rectification costs formed part of the direct cost of replacing roof trusses and should be deducted from the Insurance Gap claim.' "How Strategic's financing costs should be calculated."]

Ratio Decidendi

Suncorp's letter, read as a whole, indicated that subject to the Sub-Limit Suncorp considered itself liable to indemnify Strategic for loss referable to the roof's collapse, while excluding the direct cost of replacing the roof trusses and supports. The Insurance Gap must therefore be reduced by the direct costs of replacing the roof trusses identified in the reasons. Strategic's financing costs should be calculated by deducting from its schedule the invoices not attributable to the Broker's conduct, including the invoices identified by the Court.

Court Disposition

Judgment to be entered for plaintiff for figure calculated in accordance with reasons.

Orders

  • ['The parties were invited to perform the calculations necessary to give effect to the reasons and to agree on the damages to which Strategic is entitled.' 'The Court stated it would then enter judgment in favour of Strategic for that figure and hear any argument as to costs.']