Vinnlustodin HF v Sea Tank Shipping AS [2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm) (The Aqasia)
A recent decision of the Commercial Court in the UK has settled a decades-long dispute as to whether the term "unit" in Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules can be read as including units of measurement.
Read MoreSmart v AAI Ltd; JRK Realty Pty Ltd v AAI Ltd [2015] NSWSC 392.
Proceedings were brought against the insurer of a finance broker for recovery of misappropriated funds. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court concerned whether this was a claim for compensation, as required by the insurance policy.
Read More"Our job is to take the complex, distil it down and find a solution for our clients, but to do that we have to gain an understanding of so many different fields and areas. That can be challenging at times, but also very rewarding."
Read MoreSimmonds v Gammell [2016] EWHC 2515.
The decision concerned whether the attacks on 9/11 could be considered a "single event" for the purposes of a reinsurance contract, or if the insured's failure to provide respiratory gear for its clear-up workers made this interpretation untenable.
Read MoreA recent decision of a Standards Committee has cast doubt on insurers' ability to require a lawyer insured under a professional indemnity policy to insist on a discharge as a condition to settling a client's claim.
Read More"I started out working at ‘the big firms’ but really enjoyed the shift to the more personal environment of a smaller firm. Now I’ve spent more than half of my career at Fee Langstone..."
Read MoreTrustees Executors Ltd v Fund Managers Canterbury Ltd [2016] NZHC 2194
The decision provides a useful commentary on the interpretation of a professional services exclusion in a D&O Policy, and is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive cover of the liability risks faced by directors.
Read MoreA man fraudulently exaggerated the extent of an injury to his employer and its insurer. The insurer was sceptical of his claims -- did that prevent re-opening the settlement agreement once the lie was finally proven?
Read MoreThe Supreme Court has refused to strike out a negligence claim against a manufacturer of faulty cladding, leaving a real possibility that manufacturers of building products may be liable to end users.
Read MoreThe fire was caused by burning waste from the defendants' lifestyle block as well as their landscaping business. Business exclusion and reasonable care condition examined.
Read MoreA man was sentenced to home detention for blackmailing his insurer, though the Court was not sympathetic to the insurer's concerns about negative publicity.
Read MoreUpon the news of the first fatal crash involving a driverless car, we review the current state of this technology, and what it might mean for the insurance industry in the future.
Read MoreLWR Durham Properties Ltd (in rec) v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2016] NZHC 826.
The plaintiff is pursuing a claim in relation to damage its buildings sustained in the Canterbury earthquakes. They had applied for an order that the defendant include in their discovery evidence of "all reserves set by the insurer."
Read MoreMr. and Mrs. Gidden’s house suffered extensive damage during the Christchurch earthquakes. The couple lodged a complaint with the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) after a series of delays during which their insurer, IAG, assessed whether the house was a rebuild or a repair. To resolve the issues over the handling of the claim, the RAS arranged a meeting between the parties, the outcome of which was a typed and signed agreement whereby they agreed to “proceed in good faith on the basis of the house…being a rebuild” and to “reach agreement on costs.” The Court found that the outcome was intended to be legally binding.
Read MoreHOLLER & ROUSE v OSAKI & ANOR [2016] NZCA 130, 15 April 2016.
In 2009, a tenant of a house, Mr Osaki, negligently caused a fire that substantially damaged the house he was renting. His landlords were indemnified by AMI for the cost of repairs to the house. AMI exercised its subrogation rights to claim the repair costs from the tenants.
Read MoreThis September marks six years since the first Christchurch earthquake and there were concerns that insurers may seek to avoid claims by relying on the usual six year limitation period provided for in the Limitation Act
Read MoreThe Real Estate Agents Authority has issued a warning that agents need to take serious measures to avoid conflicts of interest.
Read MoreDELIU v CONNELL [2016] NZHC 361, 4 March 2016.
This case note considers a recent High Court decision in which an Auckland lawyer, Mr D, challenged the decision of the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) by way of judicial review. The LCRO had rejected a complaint made by Mr D against another lawyer (Mr C). In the course of considering Mr D’s judicial review proceeding, the court made important observations on the nature of the LCRO’s function and the weight the LCRO must give the Standards Committee decision being reviewed.
Read MoreAIR NEW ZEALAND LTD v DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ([2016] NZHC 393, 9 March 2016 .
Mr and Mrs Green (not their real names) flew to London on an Air New Zealand flight. Their suitcases failed to arrive until nine days into their stay. When Mrs Green asked if their lost items would be replaced by the airline on a “like-for-like” basis she was told they would. The Greens went shopping and spent $26,000 on replacements items. They recovered $1,900 from their travel insurance. They brought a claim against Air New Zealand to the Disputes Tribunal for $15,000.
Read MoreTECHNOLOGY IN LAW AND INSURANCE
According to a recent article in NZ Lawyer, robots replacing lawyers is a “near certainty”. The website stating that approximately 46% of New Zealand jobs will be taken over by machines or automated in the next 20 years. The law is apparently not immune to this development. Some predict that lawyers could be replaced by artificial intelligence sooner than we think.
Read MoreAt Fee Langstone we’re experts in the field of insurance law. We are a team of skilled litigation lawyers, able to work with you to provide strategies and robust solutions, fast.
Fee Langstone
Tel. +64 9 373 0050
Level 18, 51 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010
reception@feelangstone.co.nz
Fee Langstone at Ruby Black
201-203 High Street
Christchurch
