Insurance Law Monthly

The issue in APD Technology Pty Ltd v Maximo Developments Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 141 was whether an assured under a professional indemnity policy granting indemnity and defence costs coverage for liability for "compensation" could recover for claims made in which there were allegations of breach of fiduciary duty seeking restitutionary remedies.

As all readers will know, the majority of property policies offering business interruption insurance will do so on the condition that the interruption is the result of loss or damage affecting the insured premises. In two cases, Headfort Arms Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 608 and Coachhouse Catering Ltd v Frost Insurance Ltd and Others [2022] IEHC 306, Denis McDonald J in the Irish High Court (Commercial), considered whether premises that were temporarily closed by government recommendation or order could be said to have suffered "loss".

In Northbridge General Insurance Co v Aviva Insurance Co 2022 ONCA 519 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that if two primary layer policies each contain a clause making them excess if some other insurance exists, then the two excess clauses are irreconcilable and self-cancelling. The result is that contribution may be claimed by the paying insurer.

In Rugby Football Union v Clark Smith Partnership Ltd [2022] EWHC 956 (TCC), Eyre J considered the familiar question of whether a sub-contractor was entitled to subrogation immunity by reason of being a party to a joint names insurance policy. The court held, consistently with authority, that the scope of the sub-contractor's immunity turned upon the agreement for co-insurance rather than the terms of the policy itself.