2,025 results found

This business interruption test case in NSW has resulted in a decision favouring policyholders, rather than insurers.

Cheater caught: Court of Appeal sets aside settlement where claimant hid previous claim and exaggerated injuries

In this decision, the judge provides clear analysis of the meaning and effect of s33ZF and when it can be utilised.

ASIC has new powers to reinforce the integrity and reputation of the financial services industry due to FOFA reforms.

Opt-in and fee disclosure is a two yearly opt-in arrangement and annual fee disclosure for clients paying ongoing fees.

A discussion of Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd v Maxwell [2012] WASC 53.

The plaintiff gave varying accounts of the circumstances and exposed the cause of his injury to be his own inadvertence.

In a recent landmark decision, the High Court has determined that head contractors have no common law duty of care to train their subcontractors in the safe methods of carrying out their respective specialist tasks.

With the advent of insurance technology, what can insurers, assessors and lawyers expect?

A discussion of the Davis v Moss case and its decision on Section 110 Notice's validity.

Insurers and coverholders may need to consult with underwriters and actuaries to amend insurance policies and conditions.

The Principal Claims Assessor has recently provided an insight into her construction of some of the critical provisions contained in the October 2008 amendments to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

In this decision handed down last month, the High Court held that the licensee of a restaurant was not liable for injuries to its patrons arising from the criminal conduct of a third party, in circumstances in which there was no action the licensee could have taken which would, on the balance of probabilities, have prevented that conduct.

Insurers might consider if similar conditions should be included in their business or professional liability policies.

After a legal battle lasting almost three years, HIH's UK reinsurance money is coming to Australia.

In the recent decision of Balnaves v Smith & Anor; Malone v Smith & Or [2010] QSC 39, the Queensland Supreme Court rejected the previous school of thought that section 247 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) mandates an equal apportionment regardless of the degree of fault in Queensland maritime collisions.

“Lexington Insurance Company v AGF Insurance Limited"; "Lexington Insurance Company v Wasa International Insurance Company Limited” [2009] UKHL 40 confirms that where the laws of the insurance and reinsurance contract differ, it is no longer safe to assume that cover under a facultative reinsurance contract incorporating the terms of the underlying insurance contract will be ‘back-to-back’.