Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 NOVEMBER 2009

Status Report: Speno Rail v Metals & Minerals Insurance

In our August 2009 edition of the Deacons Insurance Update, we reported on the Western Australian Court of Appeal’s decision in Speno Rail Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd v Metals & Minerals Insurance Pte Ltd

AustraliaInsurance

In our August 2009 edition of the Deacons Insurance Update, we reported on the Western Australian Court of Appeal's decision in Speno Rail Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd v Metals & Minerals Insurance Pte Ltd.

The Court considered the issue of subrogation and the interpretation of section 45 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (Act) in the context of two insurance policies which could respond to a particular claim for personal injuries suffered by employees of Speno Rail Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd (Speno) while they were working for Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (Hamersley). The first relevant insurance policy was between Speno and Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd (Zurich), under which Speno agreed, by way of contract, to indemnify Hamersley in relation to any injuries suffered by the relevant workers and added Hamersley as an insured under the Zurich policy. The second relevant insurance policy was between Hamersley and Metals & Minerals Insurance Pte Ltd (MMI).

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