Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 NOVEMBER 2019

Case Update: Interpreting Warranty & Indemnity Policies

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision of UDP Holdings Pty Ltd (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (rec and mgr apptd) v Ironshore Corporate Capital (No 2) [2019] VSC 645

SingaporeInsurance

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision of UDP Holdings Pty Ltd (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (rec and mgr apptd) v Ironshore Corporate Capital (No 2) [2019] VSC 645 is the first judgment of its type handed down in Australia and provides essential insights into the interpretation of a Warranty & Indemnity insurance policy wording. It includes guidance on how, and when, loss can be established. The case also raised a novel claim for compensation for a breach of the duty of utmost good faith by an Insurer.

The Facts

In 2012 Esposito Holdings decided to sell 5 Star Foods (the "business"), a milk trading and cheese manufacturing company for an asking price of $84 million. It entered negotiations with UDP Holdings, and a price of $70 million was agreed. After due diligence, the sale agreement required $62.5 million to be paid upfront and with the balance to be paid the following year. UDP entered into a buyer's Warranty and Indemnity insurance

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.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from