Placer v Dyno

In this case, the plaintiff, Placer, sought damages against the defendants, Dyno, for losses incurred during the construction of a gold mine in Papua New Guinea. The dispute centred around a Work Insurance policy which included an Operational All Risks endorsement. The court was tasked with determining the enforceability of the policy, the extent of coverage, and the appropriate quantification of losses, particularly in relation to business interruption. The issues included whether the policy could be enforced by an unnamed insured, whether there had been a material alteration of the risk, and the consequences of non-disclosure and breaches of the due care clause. The court also had to consider whether a waiver of non-disclosure by one insured extended to the co-insured and how to quantify contributions in cases of double insurance.

The court first examined the enforceability of the policy under Papua New Guinea law, which was identified as the proper law of the contract. It found that the policy could indeed be enforced by the unnamed insured, Placer. The court also assessed whether there had been a material alteration of the risk, concluding that there had not been. The non-disclosure and breach of the due care clause were considered, with the court ruling that the waiver of non-disclosure by one insured constituted a waiver against all co-insureds. In terms of quantifying the losses, the court determined that the business interruption loss should be assessed according to the policy terms. It also addressed the issue of judgment being rendered in a foreign currency, finding that the parties had agreed to this and it was therefore appropriate. Finally, the court dealt with the issue of indemnity costs, ruling that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.

The court's final orders included a determination that the policy was enforceable and that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's losses, quantified according to the terms of the policy. The court also ordered the defendants to pay Placer's costs of the proceeding. The judgment was rendered in US dollars, in line with the parties' agreement, and included detailed calculations for the business interruption loss and the indemnity costs. The court’s ruling provided clarity on several complex issues, including the enforceability of the policy, the impact of non-disclosure, and the quantification of losses under the policy terms.