Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 MARCH 2016

Australian Insurance Law Update: Lessons From Todd v Alterra

Interpreting insurance contracts is often contentious as coverage and exclusion clauses contain varying degrees of ambiguity.

AustraliaInsurance

Interpreting insurance contracts is often contentious as coverage and exclusion clauses contain varying degrees of ambiguity. The case of Todd v Alterra at Lloyds Ltd (on behalf of the underwriting members of Syndicate 1400) 1 (Todd) considered whether a professional indemnity policy responded to cover losses suffered as a result of financial advice given for products not on an insured's Approved Products List.

Overview and lessons for insurers

In summary the court:

  • did not accept that the words "approved investments products" used in a coverage and exclusion clause meant only those investments contained in a licensees' Approved Product List.
  • considered the word "Encompassing" meant "containing" rather than "including", limiting the activities covered by the Policy to advice given on approved investment products and life insurance products.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from