Chalmers Leask Underwriting Agencies v Mayne Nickless Ltd [1983] HCA 20
The exclusion in clause (iii) of the insurance policy is limited by its own terms to 'the part immediately affected,' which in this case was at most the coffer dam. Since the claim was not for loss or damage to the coffer dam but to other works, and the exclusion does not apply to such consequential damage, the exclusion clause does not prevent recovery by the insured.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['construction of Exclusion Clauses' "contractors' Risks Insurance" 'policy Interpretation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether loss or damage suffered by the respondent was excluded by clause (iii) of the insurance policy' 'Interpretation of the limiting provision in clause (iii)']
Ratio Decidendi
The exclusion in clause (iii) of the insurance policy is limited by its own terms to 'the part immediately affected,' which in this case was at most the coffer dam. Since the claim was not for loss or damage to the coffer dam but to other works, and the exclusion does not apply to such consequential damage, the exclusion clause does not prevent recovery by the insured.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment