AXA GLOBAL RISKS (UK) LTD v HASKINS CONTRACTORS PTY LTD [2004] NSWCA 138

AXA GLOBAL RISKS (UK) LTD v HASKINS CONTRACTORS PTY LTD [2004] NSWCA 138

The policy responded to the damage to both walls because physical damage occurred during the period of insurance. The insured is entitled to indemnity for the reasonable costs of reinstatement to the condition when new, free from the defects that caused the collapse. Necessary supervisory costs are recoverable. However, a separate excess applies to each wall, as losses arose from separate events.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; cross-appeal upheld.
Legal Topics
['insurance Policy Interpretation' 'occurrence Based Cover' 'quantum of Indemnity' 'excess Clauses' 'physical Damage']
['insurance Law' 'construction Law'] ['insurance Policy Interpretation' 'occurrence Based Cover' 'quantum of Indemnity' 'excess Clauses' 'physical Damage']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether damages to retaining walls occurred during the period of insurance' "Whether 'physical damage' is distinct from property merely being liable to become damaged" "Whether insured is entitled to reinstatement to a condition 'when new' freed from original defects" 'Whether supervisory costs were necessarily incurred for reinstatement' "Whether the loss constituted a 'single event' or a 'series' for excess purposes"]

Ratio Decidendi

The policy responded to the damage to both walls because physical damage occurred during the period of insurance. The insured is entitled to indemnity for the reasonable costs of reinstatement to the condition when new, free from the defects that caused the collapse. Necessary supervisory costs are recoverable. However, a separate excess applies to each wall, as losses arose from separate events.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; cross-appeal upheld.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld only as regards the excess point.' 'Cross-appeal upheld on supervision costs.' 'Insured to recover one half of its costs of the appeal.' "The costs order in the insured's favour at trial stands." 'Judgment sum to be varied for the additional indemnity and correct excess calculation, with interest...