2,025 results found

When considering the interpretation of insurance policies, Courts look at commercial purpose as well as particular terms.

The NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Insurance Australia Limited -v- Helou on 7 October 2008.

When your home is damaged, life is suddenly upended. There’s the immediate stress of staying safe, looking after your family, and protecting your belongings from further harm. The last thing you feel like doing is dealing with paperwork.

The gate is now open for businesses to claim for business interruption insurance coverage as a result of the COVID pandemic.

The Court upheld the application of the exclusive choice of court and choice of law clause in the insurance policy.

If the precise terms of an insurance policy are not in evidence, who bears the onus of proving what it said? The NSW Court of Appeal recently considered this issue in determining the extent of the liability of an insurer.

The success and survival of importing and exporting businesses may depend on marine insurance for any loss or damage.

After 26 weeks, the Insurer can stop benefits if you were more than 61% at fault, or if your injuries are 'minor'.

The availability of flood cover for policy holders affected by QLD led to the Natural Disaster Insurance Review.

The article examines the NDIS legislation with a view to understanding what these changes mean for compensation payers.

With updated legislation insurers will achieve much needed clarity and certainty around third party claims against them.

Granting access to insurance policies violates a private relationship and must be contained within narrow guidelines.

In Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61 the High Court held that while occupiers owe a duty of care to persons lawfully on its premises, that duty does not extend to taking reasonable care to protect persons from the criminal conduct of third parties.

CGU Insurance Ltd, major engineering, wilson v vision personal training, cases, insurance

The placement and content of warning signs erected by public authorities has undergone extensive judicial scrutiny.

We discuss Chin v Comcare [2017] AATA 634 (10 May 2017).

Insurers may unlawfully discriminate unless they rely on actuarial and statistical data with mental illness exclusions.