Star Entertainment Group Limited v Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd
Case
•
[2022] FCAFC 16
•21 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Star Entertainment Group Limited v Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd [2022] FCAFC 16
[2022] FCAFC 16
21 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Star Entertainment Group Limited, the appellant, sought declaratory relief from Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd, the respondent, for losses incurred due to business interruption caused by government orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the insurer was obliged to indemnify the insured under the terms of their insurance policy. The court had to examine whether the policy, which included a memorandum extending indemnity to losses from the occurrence or discovery of a notifiable disease, also covered losses resulting from government actions to restrict the spread of COVID-19.
The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the memorandum fully specified the extent of coverage for losses due to infectious diseases and whether such losses were covered under another memorandum that referred to losses caused by actions taken to prevent catastrophes. The court also considered whether the term 'loss' in the insurance policy was limited to physical loss and if the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a catastrophe under the policy. Ultimately, the court found that the memorandum did not extend cover to losses resulting from government actions to control the spread of COVID-19, as the policy excluded cover for diseases listed in the Biosecurity Act 2015.
The Full Court held that the points of contention raised by Star, regarding what might constitute a catastrophe, did not need to be addressed since they contradicted the court's determination of the parties' agreement. The court concluded that the appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed, and the appellant should bear the costs of the proceedings. The Full Court's final orders were for the appeal and cross-appeal to be dismissed and for the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the memorandum fully specified the extent of coverage for losses due to infectious diseases and whether such losses were covered under another memorandum that referred to losses caused by actions taken to prevent catastrophes. The court also considered whether the term 'loss' in the insurance policy was limited to physical loss and if the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a catastrophe under the policy. Ultimately, the court found that the memorandum did not extend cover to losses resulting from government actions to control the spread of COVID-19, as the policy excluded cover for diseases listed in the Biosecurity Act 2015.
The Full Court held that the points of contention raised by Star, regarding what might constitute a catastrophe, did not need to be addressed since they contradicted the court's determination of the parties' agreement. The court concluded that the appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed, and the appellant should bear the costs of the proceedings. The Full Court's final orders were for the appeal and cross-appeal to be dismissed and for the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Insurance Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Contract Formation
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
VicProp OC Pty Ltd v AIG Australia Limited [2025] VCC 83
Cases Citing This Decision
94
Cao v ISPT Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWCA 188
Cao v ISPT Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWCA 188
Cases Cited
34
Statutory Material Cited
1
Swiss Re International Se v LCA Marrickville Pty Limited (Second COVID-19 insurance test cases)
[2021] FCA 1206
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas
[2004] HCA 35