QBE Insurance Australia Ltd v Vasic [2010] NSWCA 166

QBE Insurance Australia Ltd v Vasic [2010] NSWCA 166

The extrinsic materials relied on by the insurers were not admissible because the Wesfarmers policy and proposal documents were not shown to be known to QBE, MMI or their agent, and Mr Low's statement reflected the subjective purpose of a non-agent rather than mutually known surrounding circumstances. On the proper construction of the coverage clause, the insureds' activity was allowing licensed shooters onto the property for the purpose of hunting only; the plaintiff's father was such a licensed shooter, and the fire injury suffered by the son while the hunting party stayed overnight in the shearers' quarters was an occurrence in connection with that activity. The connection was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Concerning Answers to Separate Questions on Insurance Policy Indemnity / Court of Appeal From Supreme Court Common Law Division Decision of Garling J
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['construction of Insurance Policy' 'indemnity Insurance' 'admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence' 'surrounding Circumstances in Contractual Interpretation' 'liability for Bodily Injury in Connection With Hunting Activity']
['insurance' 'contract Law'] ['construction of Insurance Policy' 'indemnity Insurance' 'admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence' 'surrounding Circumstances in Contractual Interpretation' 'liability for Bodily Injury in Connection With Hunting Activity']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Concerning Answers to Separate Questions on Insurance Policy Indemnity / Court of Appeal From Supreme Court Common Law Division Decision of Garling J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether extrinsic materials including a prior Wesfarmers policy, proposal forms and an insurance broker's statement were admissible in construing the QBE policy." "Whether the coverage clause indemnified the insureds for the plaintiff's claim arising from injuries suffered in a fire while accompanying his licensed shooter father on an overnight hunting excursion." "Whether the words “in connection with the Insured's activity of allowing licensed shooters on their properties for the purpose of hunting only” limited coverage to licensed shooters or to the act of hunting itself."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extrinsic materials relied on by the insurers were not admissible because the Wesfarmers policy and proposal documents were not shown to be known to QBE, MMI or their agent, and Mr Low's statement reflected the subjective purpose of a non-agent rather than mutually known surrounding circumstances. On the proper construction of the coverage clause, the insureds' activity was allowing licensed shooters onto the property for the purpose of hunting only; the plaintiff's father was such a licensed shooter, and the fire injury suffered by the son while the hunting party stayed overnight in the shearers' quarters was an occurrence in connection with that activity. The connection was not...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Order appellants to file a notice of appeal within 14 days.' 'Appeal dismissed with costs.']