Mie Force Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd

Mie Force Pty Ltd (the appellant) sought to recover under a construction works insurance policy issued by Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (the respondent). The dispute arose from a claim made by the appellant following damage sustained during demolition works. The appellant had supplied labour to a sub-contractor, who was engaged by a principal contractor. The central issue was whether the appellant qualified as a "Named Insured" under the respondent's policy.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant fell within the definition of "Named Insured" as provided in the policy. This involved construing the terms "agent" and "sub-contractor" as used in the policy wording. Specifically, the court had to decide whether "agent" should be interpreted in its strict legal sense or in a more colloquial sense of an intermediary or service provider. Furthermore, the court considered whether the appellant, as a sub-sub-contractor to the principal contractor, could be considered a sub-contractor of the principal within the policy's meaning, and whether it was an "agent" of the sub-contractor.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the policy's definition of "Named Insured" was clear and did not extend to the appellant. The court adopted the strict legal meaning of "agent," finding that the appellant's relationship with the sub-contractor did not establish an agency in that sense. The court also concluded that the appellant did not fit the definition of a sub-contractor of the principal contractor as contemplated by the policy. The appeal was dismissed with costs.