Marsh v CGU Insurance Ltd

The Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory heard an appeal from Ms Merilyn Kaye Marsh against CGU Insurance Ltd regarding flood damage to her property. The appellant argued that the insurer failed to clearly inform her in writing that her policy did not cover flood damage, as required by s 35(2) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. The primary issue was whether the insurer had discharged its onus of proving that the appellant had received the relevant policy documents before renewing her policy. The Court considered evidence of the insurer's system for sending policy documents, but noted the absence of evidence from the agent responsible for forwarding the policy to the appellant. The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to infer that the policy was received by the appellant, thus the insurer had discharged its onus. The Court also found that the policy wording was clear enough to inform the appellant that there was no coverage for flood damage. The appeal was dismissed.