Michael & Rosemary Foy v Calliden Insurance Limited [2017] NSWDC 33

Michael & Rosemary Foy v Calliden Insurance Limited [2017] NSWDC 33

The Plaintiffs' claim failed because they did not properly notify the loss in writing within the required period under the statutory scheme applicable to the home building insurance policy, nor did they take advantage of any available grace-period provisions. The January 2009 telephone conversation was not sufficient to satisfy the later statutory requirement for proper written notification, and the 15 September 2010 letter was not notification within six months after commencement of s 103BB. The Defendant's January 2009 statement accurately reflected the policy as it then stood and did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionability, or a representation giving rise to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Contract Proceeding / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['home Building Insurance' 'last Resort Policy' 'notification of Loss' 'period of Grace' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'estoppel' 'insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) S 54' 'section 109 Inconsistency']
['contract Law' 'insurance Law' 'consumer Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['home Building Insurance' 'last Resort Policy' 'notification of Loss' 'period of Grace' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'estoppel' 'insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) S 54' 'section 109 Inconsistency']

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

Civil Insurance Contract Proceeding / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiffs' January 2009 telephone call and later correspondence satisfied the notification requirements for a delayed claim under the home building insurance policy and the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)." "Whether the Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying indemnity for the Plaintiffs' claim." 'Whether the Defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by telling the First Plaintiff to contact it again when the builder died, disappeared or became insolvent and by not advising of later legislative changes.' 'Whether it was unconscionable for the Defendant to rely on statutory notification requirements.' 'Whether the Defendant was estopped from relying on the absence of proper written notification.' 'Whether s 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) prevented the Defendant from refusing to pay the claim by reason of failure to notify.' 'Whether Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s 103BB was inconsistent with Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) s 54 for the purposes of s 109 of the Constitution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' claim failed because they did not properly notify the loss in writing within the required period under the statutory scheme applicable to the home building insurance policy, nor did they take advantage of any available grace-period provisions. The January 2009 telephone conversation was not sufficient to satisfy the later statutory requirement for proper written notification, and the 15 September 2010 letter was not notification within six months after commencement of s 103BB. The Defendant's January 2009 statement accurately reflected the policy as it then stood and did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionability, or a representation giving rise to...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the Defendant.' "The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendant's costs."]