HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL INSURANCE LTD v PLUIM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 281

HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL INSURANCE LTD v PLUIM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 281

By majority, exclusion 6(b) of the CU Construction Policy did not apply because Mr Knight's injuries in reality arose out of the use of the bobcat, not a claim required to be covered by compulsory motor vehicle insurance, so the CU policy responded to Constructions' claim. HIH remained liable because condition 7 was void under s45(1) and not saved by s45(2), and exclusion 4(a) was not engaged because the truck was not operated by or on behalf of Constructions and did not cause the injury. The resulting double insurance justified orders resolving contribution between HIH and CU despite no formal contribution pleading. Constructions' costs cross-appeal failed because no error was shown in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Insurance Contracts Appeal Concerning Public Liability Indemnity, Exclusions, Double Insurance and Contribution Between Insurers / Appeal by Leave From the District Court of New South Wales; Cross Appeal as to Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent that CU was held liable to indemnify Constructions and contribution issues arose between HIH and CU; HIH failed in seeking complete exemption from liability; Constructions' cross-appeal as to costs dismissed; parties ordered to bring in short minutes of orders.
Legal Topics
['public Liability Insurance' 'principal Arranged Insurance' 'other Insurance Clauses' 'double Insurance and Contribution' 'compulsory Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance' 'construction of Insurance Exclusions' 'insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) S45' 'res Judicata' 'bullock or Sanderson Costs Orders']
['insurance Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['public Liability Insurance' 'principal Arranged Insurance' 'other Insurance Clauses' 'double Insurance and Contribution' 'compulsory Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance' 'construction of Insurance Exclusions' 'insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) S45' 'res Judicata' 'bullock or Sanderson Costs Orders']

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

Insurance Contracts Appeal Concerning Public Liability Indemnity, Exclusions, Double Insurance and Contribution Between Insurers / Appeal by Leave From the District Court of New South Wales; Cross Appeal as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether exclusion 6(b) of the CU Construction Policy excluded Constructions' claim for indemnity in respect of Mr Knight's damages." 'Whether condition 7 of the HIH policy was void under s45(1) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), or saved by s45(2) because the CU policy was sufficiently specified.' "Whether exclusion 4(a) of the HIH policy excluded Constructions' claim because the injury was caused by the ownership or operation of a vehicle by or on behalf of Constructions." 'Whether the absence of formal contribution pleadings between HIH and CU prevented orders finally resolving their respective liabilities.' "Whether Constructions' cross-appeal seeking a Bullock or Sanderson costs order against HIH should succeed."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, exclusion 6(b) of the CU Construction Policy did not apply because Mr Knight's injuries in reality arose out of the use of the bobcat, not a claim required to be covered by compulsory motor vehicle insurance, so the CU policy responded to Constructions' claim. HIH remained liable because condition 7 was void under s45(1) and not saved by s45(2), and exclusion 4(a) was not engaged because the truck was not operated by or on behalf of Constructions and did not cause the injury. The resulting double insurance justified orders resolving contribution between HIH and CU despite no formal contribution pleading. Constructions' costs cross-appeal failed because no error was shown in...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent that CU was held liable to indemnify Constructions and contribution issues arose between HIH and CU; HIH failed in seeking complete exemption from liability; Constructions' cross-appeal as to costs dismissed; parties ordered to bring in short minutes of orders.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to bring in short minutes of orders to reflect the reasons.' 'For that purpose the matter is listed before Handley JA at 9.30 am on Tuesday 31 October 2000.' 'If agreement is reached, the agreed short minutes can be filed in the Registry and the mention will be cancelled.' 'If agreement cannot be...