Insurance Law Monthly

Commonwealth of Australia v Vero Insurance Ltd [2012] FCA 826, a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, was by the common consent of the parties not a reinsurance dispute but rather a claim under a direct policy. However, given that the policyholder was itself an insurer, the parties’ classification of the nature of the cover provided to the policyholder is unconvincing.

Where buildings or other property have been damaged, the insurers will frequently arrange to have them rebuilt or repaired using contractors selected and appointed by the insurers. In that scenario, a question may arise as to whether the assured or the insurers are liable to the contractors to make payment.

Marchand v Jackson [2012] NZHC 2893 is the first piece of litigation to arise from the Christchurch earthquakes in September 2010 and February 2011. The many thousands of unsettled claims raise basic questions of insurance law which have not been litigated for many years or are uncertain, and cases on these matters are now slowly coming through, as will be evident from future issues of Insurance Law Monthly.

There has been much litigation on the recoverability of replacement car hire charges for a vehicle damaged in an accident which is the fault of the defendant The cases demonstrate that the claimant can recover only reasonable charges. Singh v Yaqubi [2013] EWCA Civ 23 is a useful reminder that, before the question of reasonableness can arise, the claimant has to show that there was an actual need to hire a replacement vehicle in the first place. Here, the claimant fell at the first stage.