Worth v Hdi Global Specialty Se

Link copied
Case Copied 75 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Worth v HDI Global Specialty SE [2021] NSWCA 185
Hearing dates: 19 and 20 November 2020
Date of orders: 26 August 2021
Decision date: 26 August 2021
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [7];
McCallum JA at [204]
Decision:

(1) Allow the appeal.

(2) Set aside Order (1) made on 19 March 2020 and Orders (1) to (4) made on 17 April 2020.

(3) Judgment for the appellant against the respondent for the sum of $464,384, together with interest pursuant to Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) s 57, from 1 January 2016 to 26 August 2021 of $124,649, and $60.39 per day until the date of payment.

(4) Dismiss the cross-claim.

(5) Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

(6) Direct the appellant within 14 days of today’s date to file a written submission providing her calculation of the interest to be awarded to her, with the respondent to file any differing calculation within 7 days thereafter.

Catchwords:

INSURANCE – where appellant’s house destroyed in a fire – where house used to operate a business – where house and business insured by respondent – where respondent granted conditional indemnity under deed of release – where respondent then denied liability on basis fire deliberately lit by insured – whether primary judge erred in finding appellant deliberately started fire

INSURANCE – measure of indemnity – where lack of reasonable despatch in rectifying property – whether indemnity for property damage payable on reinstatement basis

INSURANCE – damages – whether damages available for consequential loss arising from insurer’s breach of promise to indemnify – whether damages available for inconvenience and distress caused by breach

Legislation Cited:

Enterprise Act 2016 (UK), s 28

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140(2)

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), ss 13, 14(1), 57

Cases Cited:

ApostolosKonstantineVentouris v Trevor Rex Mountain (The Italia Express (No 2)) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281

Archibald v Powlett (2017) 53 VR 645; [2017] VSCA 259

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344

Belhaven and Stenton Peerage (1875) 1 App Cas 278

Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1

Brescia Furniture Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2007) 14 ANZ Ins Cas 61-740; [2007] NSWSC 598

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)

Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Ltd [1994] NSWCA 359; (1995) 8 ANZ Ins Cas 61-232

Globe Church Incorporated v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 470; [2019] NSWCA 27

Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125

Judd & Judd v Suncorp Insurance & Finance (1988) 5 ANZ Ins Cas 60-832

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Worth v Hdi Global Specialty Se 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWCA 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Ms Worth, and her insurer, HDI Global Specialty SE (the respondent), following the destruction of her house by fire. Ms Worth’s house was also used for her business operations, and both the property and the business were insured by the respondent. The respondent had initially granted a conditional indemnity under a deed of release but subsequently denied liability, alleging the fire was deliberately lit by Ms Worth. The primary judge had found in favour of the respondent on this point.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Ms Worth deliberately started the fire, whether the indemnity for property damage was payable on a reinstatement basis despite a lack of reasonable despatch in rectifying the property, and whether damages were available for consequential loss, including inconvenience and distress, arising from the insurer's alleged breach of its promise to indemnify.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the primary judge. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in concluding that Ms Worth deliberately lit the fire. The Court determined that the appellant was entitled to judgment for the sum of $464,384, representing the indemnity for the property damage. The Court also awarded interest on this sum and dismissed the respondent's cross-claim. The respondent was ordered to pay Ms Worth's costs at first instance and on appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Allow the appeal.

(2) Set aside Order (1) made on 19 March 2020 and Orders (1) to (4) made on 17 April 2020.

(3) Judgment for the appellant against the respondent for the sum of $464,384, together with interest pursuant to Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) s 57, from 1 January 2016 to 26 August 2021 of $124,649, and $60.39 per day until the date of payment.

(4) Dismiss the cross-claim.

(5) Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

(6) Direct the appellant within 14 days of today’s date to file a written submission providing her calculation of the interest to be awarded to her, with the respondent to file any differing calculation within 7 days thereafter.

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.