JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and NETTLE, JJ.A. and HOLLINGWORTH A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 and 4 August 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 September 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 223

---

Insurance – Professional indemnity policy – Estate agent – Injury caused by defective premises – Failure of agent to keep premises in repair breach of “professional duty” – Duty owed by agent to injured person a professional duty –Agent entitled to indemnity.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P.J. Riordan, S.C. Mr M.J. Rivette	Minter Ellison
For the Respondent	Mr I.D. Martindale	Dibbs Abbott Stillman

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

The respondent (“the agent”) was engaged by one Steve Tzirtis (“the landlord”) as a real estate agent to manage premises in Narre Warren owned by the landlord and which were leased to Leonie Vidot (“the tenant”). The tenant was injured when she fell upon tripping in a shallow hole in the concrete floor of the garage of the leased premises.

The tenant brought a proceeding in the County Court against the landlord and the agent to recover damages for her injury. The cause of action pleaded against the agent was negligence. The particulars of negligence included allegations that the agent failed to repair the floor of the garage or to advise the landlord of the danger notwithstanding the tenant’s complaints that the hole should be covered and failed to observe the hole and recognise the danger it posed. In response to a request for particulars the tenant alleged:

“About a month after the plaintiff moved into the premises she complained about the hole in the floor in the garage and asked if it could be covered over. The plaintiff went to the office of the (agent) and made the request to a receptionist at the office.
Over the course of the next five or six months the plaintiff made three or four complaints to the office of the (agent), in particular to the receptionist to whom she paid the rent.”

Each defendant claimed contribution from the other. The agent also made a third party claim against the appellant (“the insurer”) claiming indemnity against the tenant’s claim pursuant to a professional indemnity policy of insurance issued by the insurer to the agent.

The proceeding by the tenant against the landlord and the agent and the claims between the defendants for contribution were settled. The terms of settlement provided, inter alia, that there would be judgment for the tenant against the agent in the sum of $85,000 and costs, that the claim against the landlord would be dismissed and that the claim for contribution between the agent and the landlord would be struck out. The agent was encouraged by the insurer to enter into the settlement. The insurer asserted that the offer of settlement was reasonable and threatened that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Landridge Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Landridge Pty Ltd [2005] VSCA 223
Case: [2005] VSCA 223
Decision Date: 14 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Landridge Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd, sought to determine whether it was liable for a claim under a professional indemnity policy issued to the defendant, Landridge Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from an incident where an estate agent, employed by Landridge, suffered injuries due to the defective condition of the premises he was inspecting. The issue before the court was whether the injury caused by the defective premises constituted a breach of the agent’s professional duty, thereby entitling Landridge to indemnity from Suncorp Metway.

The court had to decide whether the duty owed by the estate agent to the injured party constituted a professional duty under the terms of the insurance policy. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition by the estate agent constituted a breach of this professional duty, and if such a breach triggered the insurance coverage. The primary concern was to interpret the policy wording and determine if the injury incident fell within the scope of professional indemnity coverage.

In its decision, the court held that the estate agent's duty to ensure the safety of the premises during inspections was indeed a professional duty. The failure to maintain the premises in a repairable condition amounted to a breach of this duty, as it directly contributed to the injury suffered by the agent. Given that the policy covered professional negligence, the court ruled in favour of Landridge, concluding that Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd was liable to indemnify Landridge for the claim. The court's interpretation of the policy terms and the nature of the professional duty established a clear pathway for the indemnity claim to be upheld.

The court ordered Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd to compensate Landridge Pty Ltd for the claim made under the professional indemnity policy, reflecting its determination that the injury incident was covered by the terms of the insurance agreement. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining premises in a safe condition and the implications for professional indemnity coverage in such circumstances.

Orders