New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Faulty workmanship exclusion

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2006

RECREATIONAL TURF LIMITED V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED CA CA244/05

Citation

openlaw-4c71bfbb_1173_43ed_8bc4_88de2d1f8567.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Special leave was refused because the dispute concerned the application of a clear exclusionary phrase to established facts (a question of fact rather than a point of law), the remedial costs clearly fell within 'the cost of remedying faulty workmanship', the applicant's case was not clearly arguable on legal grounds, and the amount and private interest did not justify further appeal.
14 Sept 2005

RECREATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2004-404-7111

Citation

openlaw-4d9d09a1_e939_4f59_bb71_d226ab97f905.pdf
Court

High Court

Exclusion 17 (faulty workmanship) is to be read to include the costs reasonably necessary to put right the insured's faulty workmanship, including restoration of property damaged by that faulty work; exclusion 18 was ambiguous as to 'servicing' and construed for the insured, but because exclusion 17 applied the insurer was entitled to decline cover for the restoration costs, so the appeal is dismissed.