AIG Insurance Ltd v Hanna

Link copied
Case Copied 50 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: AIG Australia Ltd v Hanna [2024] NSWCA 91
Hearing dates: 19 March 2024
Date of orders: 24 April 2024
Decision date: 24 April 2024
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Mitchelmore JA at [2];
Griffiths AJA at [82]
Decision:

(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

INSURANCE — public liability insurance — where insured was builder responsible for construction site — where formworker slipped and fell from scaffolding — where insurer repudiated the policy because of misrepresentations by insured — whether the policy responded to liability assumed by a consent judgment — whether insured needed to prove that he was liable to the formworker — whether the settlement amount was reasonable

APPEALS — amendment of notice of appeal — whether leave should be granted to run a new ground of appeal — where argument not put below — where argument may have been met by further evidence at trial

Legislation Cited:

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

CGU Insurance Ltd v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2007) 235 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 36

Distillers Co Bio-Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1974) 130 CLR 1; [1974] HCA 3

James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 53; [1998] HCA 78

Post Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1967] 2 QB 363

Superannuation & Corporate Services Pty Ltd v Turner [2020] NSWCA 246

Vero Insurance Ltd v Baycorp Advantage Ltd [2004] NSWCA 390; 23 ACLC 199

Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance [2018] NSWCA 100; 359 ALR 314

Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance [2017] NSWSC 259

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: AIG Australia Ltd (Appellant)
George Hanna (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Sexton SC / J Sleight (Appellant)
CP O’Neill (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McMahons Lawyers (Appellant)
Sanford Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00278712
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Date of Decision:
31 August 2023
Before:
Gibb DCJ
File Number(s):
2021/233407

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The respondent, George Hanna, was the named insured in a policy of insurance with the appellant, AIG Insurance Ltd (AIG) (the Policy). The Policy related to a construction project (the Project). Pursuant to cl 5.00 of the Policy, AIG was required to indemnify Mr Hanna “for all sums that you become legally liable to pay as compensation”, subject to conditions not relevant to the appeal. Clause 10.01 provided that, unless Mr Hanna obtained AIG’s prior written consent, he was not to admit liability or settle any third-party claim.

In October 2018, whilst the Policy was in force, Mr Hasan, a formworker on the Project, was injured when he slipped and fell from scaffolding. In August 2020, Mr Hanna made a claim for indemnity under the Policy. In a telephone call with AIG’s solicitor in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AIG Insurance Ltd v Hanna and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] NSWCA 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AIG Insurance Ltd appealed a decision of the District Court of South Australia concerning a public liability insurance policy. The dispute arose after a formworker slipped and fell from scaffolding at a construction site managed by the insured builder. The insurer, AIG, had repudiated the policy, alleging misrepresentations by the insured. The primary judge had found that the policy responded to liability assumed by the insured through a consent judgment, and that the insured had discharged his onus of proving his liability to the formworker and the reasonableness of the settlement amount.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the insurance policy responded to liability assumed by the insured via a consent judgment, whether the insured was required to prove actual liability to the injured formworker (rather than just the reasonableness of the settlement), and whether the settlement amount was reasonable in the circumstances. A further issue arose concerning an application to amend the notice of appeal to introduce a new ground, which had not been argued in the court below and might have been met by further evidence at trial.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal. It held that the policy did respond to liability assumed by the insured through a consent judgment, provided that the liability was one that the policy was intended to cover. The court affirmed that the insured bore the onus of proving that he was liable to the formworker and that the settlement amount was reasonable. The application to amend the notice of appeal was refused, as the new ground was not one that could be readily considered on appeal without the potential for further evidence and argument.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.