Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 79 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2015] QSC 72

PARTIES:

MATTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 100 028 340
(plaintiff)
v
CGU INSURANCE LIMITED

ACN 004 478 371
(defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 1704 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 November 2014; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 December 2014

JUDGE:

Flanagan J

ORDERS:

1.   The claim filed 1 March 2011 be dismissed.

2.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – REPUDIATION AND NON-PERFORMANCE – REPUDIATION – WHAT AMOUNTS TO REPUDIATION – where the defendant provided Contractors and Plant Insurance to the plaintiff in respect of a crane – where the crane was rendered a total loss when the crane’s boom collapsed – where the plaintiff sought indemnity under the insurance policy – where the defendant denied indemnity claiming the crane was operated on a slope in contravention of Australian standards and manufacturer’s guidelines and was therefore excluded from the policy – where the plaintiff denied any contravention and asserted the crane was operated on level ground and the collapse was due to an inherent defect – where the plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to properly investigate the claim and sought only to prove its own version of events – whether a wrongful denial of indemnity pursuant to an insurance policy amounts to a repudiation of the policy – whether the defendant’s alleged conduct amounted to a repudiation of the policy – whether the plaintiff accepted any alleged repudiation

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION – where the defendant provided Contractors and Plant Insurance to the plaintiff in respect of a crane – where the crane was rendered a total loss when the crane’s boom collapsed – where the plaintiff sought indemnity under the insurance policy – where the defendant denied indemnity claiming the crane was operated on a slope in contravention of Australian standards and manufacturer’s guidelines and was therefore excluded from the policy – where the plaintiff denied any contravention and asserted the crane was operated on level ground and the collapse was due to an inherent defect – where the crane had been financed by the plaintiff and default interest was payable by the plaintiff pursuant to its finance –  where the policy limited indemnity for loss of revenue – where the plaintiff claimed the defendant’s denial of indemnity amounted to a breach of the policy – where the plaintiff claimed loss of revenue in excess of the policy limit and default interest pursuant to its financial arrangements – whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff for loss of revenue and default interest were too remote

INSURANCE – CLAIMS GENERALLY – REFUSAL – GENERALLY – where the defendant provided Contractors and Plant Insurance…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) 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
[2015] QSC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matton Developments Pty Ltd (plaintiff) sued CGU Insurance Limited (defendant) seeking indemnity under a policy of Contractors and Plant Insurance. The plaintiff owned a crane which was rendered a total loss when its boom collapsed. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim for indemnity, contending the crane was operated on a slope contrary to Australian standards and manufacturer's guidelines, and was therefore excluded from the policy. The plaintiff denied any contravention and asserted the crane was operated on level ground and the collapse was due to an inherent defect. The plaintiff also alleged the defendant failed to properly investigate the claim and sought only to prove its own version of events. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's alleged conduct amounted to a repudiation of the policy, whether the plaintiff accepted any alleged repudiation, whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff were too remote, and whether the defendant breached the duty of utmost good faith.

The court found that the defendant's denial of indemnity did not amount to a repudiation of the policy, and the plaintiff had not accepted any alleged repudiation. The court held that the damages claimed by the plaintiff for loss of revenue and default interest were too remote. The court found that the defendant did not breach the duty of utmost good faith, and the duty of utmost good faith was not a statutory duty the breach of which allows the plaintiff to sue in tort for breach of statutory duty. The court held that the exclusion clauses in the policy were applicable, and the additional cover was illusory if the exclusion clauses were applicable. The court found that the crane was located and in use in the manner in which it was designed to be used, and the collapse of the crane's boom was accidental, sudden and unforeseen. The court held that the owner's indemnity additional cover had no application. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered that the parties would be heard as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claim filed 1 March 2011 be dismissed.

2. I will hear the parties as to 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.