Insurance Law Monthly

New Zealand earthquake cases continue to make new law. The most recent, O'Loughlin v Tower Insurance Ltd [2013] NZHC 670, was a high-profile decision which attracted much press coverage. The basic issue was whether a house had been lost or damaged simply because it was in the Christchurch Red Zone.

In Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG and Others (The Alexandros T) [2012] EWCA Civ 1714 the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement of claims under insurance policies issued in respect of a vessel which was totally lost.

In the November 2012 issue of Insurance Law Monthly there was discussion of the decision of Popplewell J in ACE European Group Ltd v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 1245 (Comm). There were two separate questions in that case: is it possible to establish a proximate cause by eliminating other possible causes; and is inherent vice an available defence where some other proximate cause of the loss is shown?

In Beazley Underwriting Ltd and Others v Al Ahleia Insurance Co [2013] EWHC 677 (Comm) Eder J analysed in some detail the meaning of the wording of a claims control clause used in a reinsurance contract. This is the first analysis of such a clause for some time. In the event the learned judge found that there was no breach of the clause by reason of negotiations between the assured, the reinsured and one of the subscribing reinsurers.

There was in the January 2012 issue of Insurance Law Monthly a report on the decision of Lang J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland District Registry, 15 September 2011, in Steigrad v BSFL 2007 Ltd.

In Standard Life Assurance Ltd v ACE European Group & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1713, the Court of Appeal has rejected the insurers’ argument that there should be an apportionment between insured and uninsured interests under a “Mitigation Costs” clause of a professional indemnity policy.

The decision of McDougall J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Standard Publishing House (Aust) Pty Ltd  v Chen and Another; GIO General Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1544, raises a series of interesting questions on the scope of insuring obligations under a lease, the effect of a subrogation waiver clause and the availability of contribution.