Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited - [2016] QCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2016] QCA 208

PARTIES:

MATTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 100 028 340
(appellant)
v
CGU INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 004 478 371
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4741 of 2015
SC No 1704 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 72

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA concurring as to the orders made, Fraser JA dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed with costs.

2.   The judgment below is set aside.

3.   Instead, the respondent is to pay the appellant:

(a) $1,397,934 being the agreed quantum for the total loss of the crane;

(b) $530,000 being the agreed sum for the loss of revenue for the period 1 February 2009 to 30 November 2012;

(c) $326,970 being the agreed sum for loss of revenue for the period 1 December 2012 to 15 April 2015;

(d) $378.00 per day being the agreed daily rate for loss of revenue from 15 April 2015 to the date of this order;

(e) interest under s 57 Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) from 1 April 2009 to the date of this order;

(f) costs as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THE POLICY – PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION – where the respondent issued a policy of insurance in respect of the appellant’s crane – where in the course of lifting a concrete tilt panel the boom of the crane collapsed and the crane was damaged beyond economical repair – where the respondent refused indemnity under the policy – where there was an “accidental overload clause” in the “Additional Benefits” section of the policy – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in construing the word “overloading” in the “accidental overload clause” – where the respondent submits the primary judge’s analysis was correct – whether the definition of “overloading” in the “accidental overload clause” includes the “structural overloading” which caused the damage to the crane

INSURANCE – THE POLICY – PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION – where the respondent issued a policy of insurance in respect of the appellant’s crane – where in the course of lifting a concrete tilt panel the boom of the crane collapsed and the crane was damaged beyond economical repair – where the respondent refused indemnity under the policy – where there was an “accidental overload clause” in the “Additional Benefits” section of the policy – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in characterising the facts as a deliberate courting of the risk such as to render the overloading and consequential damage neither unexpected nor unforeseen and thus not accidental – where the respondent submits that the primary judge correctly found that the plaintiff did not prove the boom…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited 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: [2016] QCA 208
Decision Date: 23 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited, the dispute arose from an incident where the appellant’s crane suffered significant damage during the course of lifting a concrete tilt panel. The crane’s boom collapsed, rendering the crane beyond economical repair. The insurance company, CGU Insurance Limited, refused to provide indemnity under the policy due to an “accidental overload clause” in the “Additional Benefits” section. The appellant challenged the refusal, asserting that the primary judge had incorrectly construed the term “overloading” in the policy. The central issue before the court was whether the damage to the crane, caused by structural overloading, was covered by the insurance policy as an accidental event.

The court examined the language of the policy and the specific clause related to accidental overloading. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in characterising the events as deliberate, which they claimed would render the overloading and consequential damage neither unexpected nor unforeseen. The insurance company, on the other hand, maintained that the primary judge’s interpretation was correct and that the appellant failed to prove that the boom collapse was unexpected or unforeseen. The court had to determine if the overloading was truly accidental and if the damage to the crane was accidental, sudden, and unforeseen within the meaning of the policy.

After careful analysis of the policy language and the surrounding circumstances, the court found in favour of the appellant. The court held that the primary judge had erred in their interpretation of the policy terms. The court found that the damage to the crane was indeed accidental, sudden, and unforeseen, and thus covered by the insurance policy. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment was set aside. The court ordered the insurance company to compensate the appellant for the total loss of the crane and for the loss of revenue over various periods, along with interest and costs as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed with costs.

2. The judgment below is set aside.

3. Instead, the respondent is to pay the appellant:

(a) $1,397,934 being the agreed quantum for the total loss of the crane;

(b) $530,000 being the agreed sum for the loss of revenue for the period 1 February 2009 to 30 November 2012;

(d) $378.00 per day being the agreed daily rate for loss of revenue from 15 April 2015 to the date of this order;

(e) interest under s 57 Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) from 1 April 2009 to the date of this order;

(f) costs as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2016] QCA 208
PARTIES:	MATTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 100 028 340 (appellant) v CGU INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 004 478 371 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4741 of 2015 SC No 1704 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 72
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 October 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA concurring as to the orders made, Fraser JA dissenting
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed with costs. 2. The judgment below is set aside. 3. Instead, the respondent is to pay the appellant: (a) $1,397,934 being the agreed quantum for the total loss of the crane; (b) $530,000 being the agreed sum for the loss of revenue for the period 1 February 2009 to 30 November 2012; (c) $326,970 being the agreed sum for loss of revenue for the period 1 December 2012 to 15 April 2015; (d) $378.00 per day being the agreed daily rate for loss of revenue from 15 April 2015 to the date of this order; *(e) interest under s 57 Insurance Contracts Act* 1984 (Cth) from 1 April 2009 to the date of this order; (f) costs as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.**
CATCHWORDS:	INSURANCE – THE POLICY – PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION – where the respondent issued a policy of insurance in respect of the appellant’s crane – where in the course of lifting a concrete tilt panel the boom of the crane collapsed and the crane was damaged beyond economical repair – where the respondent refused indemnity under the policy – where there was an “accidental overload clause” in the “Additional Benefits” section of the policy – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in construing the word “overloading” in the “accidental overload clause” – where the respondent submits the primary judge’s analysis was correct – whether the definition of “overloading” in the “accidental overload clause” includes the “structural overloading” which caused the damage to the crane INSURANCE – THE POLICY – PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION – where the respondent issued a policy of insurance in respect of the appellant’s crane – where in the course of lifting a concrete tilt panel the boom of the crane collapsed and the crane was damaged beyond economical repair – where the respondent refused indemnity under the policy – where there was an “accidental overload clause” in the “Additional Benefits” section of the policy – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in characterising the facts as a deliberate courting of the risk such as to render the overloading and consequential damage neither unexpected nor unforeseen and thus not accidental – where the respondent submits that the primary judge correctly found that the plaintiff did not prove the boom…