Moore v Tatura Milk Industries

Moore brought an action against Tatura Milk Industries, his former employer, and against the employer’s insurer, seeking damages for injuries sustained while working as an independent contractor. The dispute came before the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the insurer was liable to indemnify the appellant for the injuries he sustained, whether the insurer was estopped from denying liability to indemnify, and whether the insurer had elected to indemnify. The Court of Appeal held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the appellant for the injuries he sustained. It found that the appellant was not a worker for the purposes of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), and that he was therefore not entitled to compensation under the Act. The Court found that the insurer was not estopped from denying liability to indemnify. It held that the appellant had not established that he had reasonably relied on a representation by the insurer that it would indemnify him for the injuries he sustained. Finally, the Court found that the insurer had not elected to indemnify the appellant. It held that the insurer had not made any unequivocal representation or taken any unequivocal action which would have amounted to an election to indemnify the appellant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.