Anderson v AON Risk Services Australia Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 66 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Anderson v AON Risk Services Australia Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 049

PARTIES:

MALCOLM ANDERSON
(plaintiff)
v

AON RISK SERVICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ACN 000 434 720
(first defendant)
HISCOX DEDICATED CORPORATE MEMBER LTD
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 2097 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 February 2004

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – GENERAL – MISREPRESENTATION AND NON-DISCLOSURE – STATUTORY REMEDIES –where agreed value policy pending independent valuation – where insured values grossly exceed market values – where alleged misrepresentation and nondisclosure by insured – where misrepresentation and nondisclosure not fraudulent –  whether insurer is entitled to reduce its liability to the amount that would place the insurer in a position in which the insurer would have been if the misrepresentation had not been made

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where plaintiff says that insured items were stolen – where defendant did not deny nor admit this statement – where defendant provided particulars suggesting fraudulent claiming by the plaintiff – whether the defendant can advance a fraud case absent a denial that the goods were stolen

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), s 28(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 150, r 166, r 166(4)

 Advance (NSW) Insurance Agencies Pty Ltd v Matthews (1989) 166 CLR 606, followed
CIC Insurance Limited v Midaz Pty Ltd & Anor (1998) 10 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-394, cited
Orb Holdings Pty Ltd v Lombard Insurance Co (Australia) Ltd [1994] QCA 155; [1995] Qd R 51, cited
Palamisto General Enterprises S A v Ocean Marine Insurance Co Ltd [1972] 2 QB 625 (CA), cited
Simon v NRMA Insurance Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal, 22 October 1991), cited

COUNSEL:

E J Lennon QC for the plaintiff
S S Couper QC for the first defendant on 9 February 2004
G E Hiley QC, with S S Couper QC and S R Lumb for the second defendant on 9-10 February 2004

S S Couper QC, with S R Lumb, for the second defendant on 11-16 February 2004

SOLICITORS:

Lyonsmith Commercial Lawyers for the plaintiff
Sparke Helmore Solicitors for the first defendant

Phillips Fox Lawyers for the second defendant

  1. J:McMURDO   The plaintiff, Mr Anderson, is a 52 year man who for many years has conducted an apparently successful business of the provision of security services.  He has spent a considerable amount of his leisure time in hunting, both in this country and overseas.  His safaris have taken him to Africa, North America and elsewhere.  Many of the animals he shot were sent to a taxidermist to provide him with what hunters call their trophies.  At the beginning of 1999, his trophies decorated rooms of his house at Bellbird Park near Ipswich, where he then lived…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v AON Risk Services Australia Ltd 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
[2004] QSC 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anderson v AON Risk Services Australia Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for the theft of goods under an agreed value policy pending an independent valuation. The defendant insurer contended that the insured values grossly exceeded market values and alleged misrepresentation and nondisclosure by the insured. The dispute centred on whether the insurer was entitled to reduce its liability to the amount that would place the insurer in the position it would have been in had there been no misrepresentation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues were whether the insurer could rely on the misrepresentation and nondisclosure defences, and if the insurer could advance a fraud case despite not denying the theft. The court needed to determine if the alleged misrepresentation and nondisclosure were fraudulent and, if not, whether the insurer could still reduce its liability under the policy terms.

The court held that the insurer could not rely on the misrepresentation and nondisclosure defences if they were not fraudulent. The court found that the insurer had not proven the misrepresentation and nondisclosure were fraudulent. Consequently, the court held that the insurer was not entitled to reduce its liability based on those defences. The court also found that the insurer could not advance a fraud case without denying that the goods were stolen, which the insurer had not done.

The final orders were that the second defendant, AON Risk Services Australia Ltd, was awarded judgment against the plaintiff, Anderson.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff

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.