Worth v Hdi Global Specialty Se

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.