SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Selected Seeds P/L v QBEMM P/L & Anor [2009] QCA 286
PARTIES:
SELECTED SEEDS PTY LTD ACN 009 826 016
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
QBEMM PTY LIMITED ACN 087 142 569
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
ACN 003 191 035
(defendants/appellants)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 4709 of 2009
SC No 7020 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
22 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 September 2009
JUDGES:
Holmes and Fraser JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the trial judge.
3. Dismiss the respondent’s claim in the Trial Division.
4. Respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: INSURANCE – POLICIES OF INSURANCE – CONSTRUCTION – where respondent purchased liability insurance from the appellants – where the policy was described as a ‘broadform liability policy’ – where respondent involved in litigation in relation to its business of supplying seed – where respondent had contracted with a purchaser to supply Jarra grass seed but actually supplied Summer grass seed – where that purchaser in turn supplied the seed to a third party and the seed was then supplied to further parties, eventually causing damage to property – where the respondent was sued by a party and paid $150,000 to settle the claims made against it – where the trial judge declared that the respondent was entitled to indemnity under the insurance policy issued by the appellants for $150,000 – whether the respondent’s legal liability to pay the $150,000 fell within the insuring clause – whether there had been an ‘Occurrence’ which had caused property damage – whether the respondent’s liability was excluded from cover under the ‘Efficacy Clause’
Allianz Australia Ltd v Wentworthville Real Estate Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 100, cited
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99; [1973] HCA 36, cited
Australian Casualty Co Ltd v Federico (1986) 160 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 32, cited
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280; [1993] FCA 456, cited
Commissioner of State Revenue v Politis [2004] VSC 126, cited
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33, cited
Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500; [1986] HCA 82, cited
Drayton v Martin (1996) 67 FCR 1, cited
GIO General Ltd v Newcastle City Council (1996) 38 NSWLR 558, considered
John Wyeth & Brother Ltd v Cigna Insurance Co of Europe SA/NV & Ors [2000] EWHC 192 (Comm), distinguished
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 210 CLR 181; [2001] HCA 70, cited
McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579; [2000] HCA 65
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Selected Seeds P/L v QBEMM P/L 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QCA 286
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the insuring clause and the definition of 'occurrence' within the policy. The insuring clause was broad, yet the court found that it did not cover the respondents' liability for the $150,000 payment. The court held that the policy was intended to cover risks arising from the respondents' own operations, not from the negligence of third parties. Furthermore, the court ruled that the 'efficacy clause' excluded the respondents' liability from cover, as it related to the efficacy of the seeds supplied, which was not covered under the policy. The court concluded that the respondents' liability was not an insured event under the policy.
As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed. The orders made by the trial judge were set aside, and the respondents' claim in the Trial Division was dismissed. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings in both the Trial Division and the appeal. This decision highlights the importance of carefully reviewing insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage and the need for precise policy wording to avoid ambiguity.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the trial judge.
3. Dismiss the respondent’s claim in the Trial Division.
4. Respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal.
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.