New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Professional indemnity insurance

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2016

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER 368533 v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1470

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1470
Court

High Court

On the low s 9 threshold the Body Corporate established a reasonably arguable case that its claims against Holmes are not clearly excluded by the policy's Building Defects Exclusion; ambiguity exists as to whether paragraph (a) was intended to catch Code/Standard breaches substantially concerned with moisture/weatherproofing or claims concerning structural corrosion of exposed steel; paragraph (b) was not shown to provide a cast‑iron defence; accordingly leave under s 9 granted and Dual's strike‑out dismissed.
22 Jun 2015

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED v FRIGHT AUBREY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 1411

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1411
Court

High Court

Given the unchallenged affidavit evidence, the absence of opposition, and that Dominion Finance was the only claim notified within the relevant policy claim period (with priority between Dominion Finance and PVL resolved), the Court was satisfied to grant declaratory relief under s9 Law Reform Act 1936 that there were no prior or equally ranking charges on the relevant insurance monies, thereby permitting QBE to release settlement funds to Dominion Finance.
22 Jun 2015

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LTD v FRIGHT AUBREY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 1410

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1410
Court

High Court

The Court granted permission to commence by originating application and declared that there are no prior or equally ranking charges pursuant to s 9 Law Reform Act 1936 on all insurance money payable by QBE Insurance (International) Limited under its 2008/2009 professional indemnity policy to Fright Aubrey Limited (In Liquidation) in respect of the specified liabilities arising from two claims by Dominion Finance Group Limited.
5 Aug 2014

STEFFENSEN v BGW INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1828

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1828
Court

High Court

Court found on balance of probabilities that plaintiffs instructed BGW to sell BT and JBWere funds in mid-November 2007 and BGW negligently failed to implement those instructions; the appropriate measure of loss is the lost opportunity to use sale proceeds quantified at A$13,350 (converted to NZD equivalent as at January 2008) plus interest, together with NZ$15,000 general damages to each plaintiff; purchases of Pengana and Fisher were authorised and claims re fixed interest purchases dismissed.
28 Apr 2014

BRIDGECORP LIMITED (In R’ship & In Liq) v CERTAIN LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS UNDER POLICY NO. 888/50405V04A & ORS [2014] NZHC 842

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 760
Court

High Court

The debt payable under Herbert's professional indemnity policy is situated in England because the underwriters are resident and have no place of business elsewhere; consequently the New Zealand court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to order payment under s9, so the plaintiff's application to set aside the sixth defendants' appearance under protest is dismissed.
9 May 2012

TIMOTHY ROBERT JOHN JEFFCOTT V DAVID STEPHEN HUGHES HC AK CIV 2010-404-007358

Citation

openlaw-0619f890_6355_4483_9a48_45650953d9c9.pdf
Court

High Court

The insurer must disclose the professional indemnity policy that was in force at the time the pre-purchase report was provided because that policy is relevant to the plaintiff's claim and to the operation of s 9(1); correspondence between insurer and defendants is not discoverable on the existing pleadings and the plaintiff has not met the requirements for pre-commencement discovery of correspondence tied to proposed amendments.
23 Aug 2010

CHANG V LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7820

Citation

openlaw-7b0cc3f5_7480_4842_be74_5695f457673e.pdf
Court

High Court

The endorsement's phrase "execution or implementation of investment advice or investment decisions" does not extend to the provision of advice; it refers to acts of putting into effect existing advice or decisions. Therefore the policy exclusion applied to the plaintiffs' claim for diminution in value of securities arising from alleged negligent advice, Lumley had no realistic prospect of liability, and leave under s9(4) was properly refused.
9 Dec 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO.205963 AND ANOR V LEUSCHKE GROUP ARCHITECTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-5572

Citation

openlaw-91d4a924_8cff_4819_887c_f48410b9e9c1.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 2.04 is ambiguous as to whether 'system' and the bracketed phrase apply to 'exterior cladding'. Applying ordinary meaning and industry usage, 'exterior cladding' is not to be read as 'exterior cladding system' and the bracketed phrase 'and any associated waterproofing treatment and flashings' modifies 'roofing system' only. Because of the genuine ambiguity the clause is construed for the insured. Accordingly clause 2.04 does not exclude liability for the four specified categories of water ingress and the insurer must indemnify Leuschke in respect of those matters.
8 Oct 2008

LEONARDO V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-1352

Citation

openlaw-3b07a3a3_13f0_417a_a33d_3d7ece3b751c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Building Defects Exclusion, read literally and in context, excludes indemnity for claims arising directly or indirectly from leaks/water penetration including negligent failure to detect such defects in a non-invasive survey; however, factual disputes exist as to whether the broker was authorised by QBE to represent that the exclusion did not apply to consultancy work. Those disputes are material and not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment or strike out, so the interlocutory applications must be dismissed.