Wrigley v Insurance Australia Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 78 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wrigley v Insurance Australia Limited [2016] FCA 638

File number: TAD 3 of 2015
Judge: MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment: 2 June 2016
Catchwords: INSURANCE – home and contents insurance policy – residential dwelling severely damaged by fire – insurer alleged that the fire was started by the home owners – whether insurer established on the balance of probabilities that the owners started the fire
Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), Sch 1, ss 267, 268 and 269

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), ss 13, 54, 57

Cases cited:

Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322

Commonwealth v Fernando (2012) 200 FCR 1

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466

Date of hearing: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 March 2016
Registry: Tasmania
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 96
Counsel for the Applicants: DJ Gunson SC with S Chopping
Solicitor for the Applicants: S Chopping
Counsel for the Respondent: M Douglas
Solicitor for the Respondent: Dohertys Barristers & Solicitors

ORDERS

TAD 3 of 2015
BETWEEN:

BRETT ROBERT WRIGLEY

First Applicant

YVONNE WRIGLEY

Second Applicant

AND:

INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 000 016 722) TRADING AS NRMA INSURANCE

Respondent

JUDGE:

MOSHINSKY J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2016

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.The respondent is liable to indemnify the applicants in the amount of $497,900 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the home and contents policy of insurance (policy number HOM 491494659) issued by the respondent to the applicants on or about 16 February 2014 and in force from that date until on or about 16 February 2015 in respect of the loss by fire that occurred on 4 October 2014.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.The respondent pay the applicants interest (in respect of the period from 2 December 2014 to 11 March 2016) in the amount of $31,735.55 and (in respect of the period from 12 March 2016 to the date of payment) at a daily rate of $68.21.

3.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding.

4.If either party seeks a variation of orders 2 or 3 above, the party may give notice in writing to the Court and the other party within three business days.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOSHINSKY J:

Introduction

  1. On the evening of Saturday, 4 October 2014, the home of the applicants (Mr and Mrs Wrigley) at 5 Claridge Court, Triabunna, Tasmania, was severely damaged by fire.  Mr and Mrs Wrigley lived in the house with their daughter and grandson.  All of them were out of the house at the time.  The fire started in the family room at the back of the house, in the part of the room used by Mrs…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wrigley v Insurance Australia Limited 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
[2016] FCA 638
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Wrigley and another sought a declaration that Insurance Australia Limited, the respondent, was liable under a home and contents insurance policy for the damage caused by a fire to their residential property. The insurer refused to compensate the applicants on the basis that the fire was allegedly started by the applicants. The applicants brought the action to establish liability under the policy, and the insurer counterclaimed for a declaration that the applicants were not entitled to compensation. The primary issue before the court was whether the insurer had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicants started the fire. This required consideration of the circumstantial evidence and the limitations of the expert evidence provided.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence strongly pointed against the proposition that the applicants started the fire, and the expert evidence, while not definitive, was subject to limitations. The court concluded that the insurer had not established on the balance of probabilities that the applicants were responsible for starting the fire. Therefore, the court found in favour of the applicants and ordered that the insurer pay the applicants' costs and interest on the amount of the insurance policy. The court also provided an opportunity for either party to seek a variation of the orders within three business days.

The court ordered that the insurer pay the applicants interest and their costs of the proceeding. The interest was to be paid in two amounts: $31,735.55 for the period from 2 December 2014 to 11 March 2016, and a daily rate of $68.21 for the period from 12 March 2016 to the date of payment. The court also ordered that if either party sought a variation of orders 2 or 3, they could do so by giving notice in writing within three business days. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The respondent pay the applicants interest (in respect of the period from 2 December 2014 to 11 March 2016) in the amount of $31,735.55 and (in respect of the period from 12 March 2016 to the date of payment) at a daily rate of $68.21.

3. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding.

4. If either party seeks a variation of orders 2 or 3 above, the party may give notice in writing to the Court and the other party within three business days.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

The circumstantial facts referred to in paragraphs [91]-[94] above point clearly against the proposition that the Wrigleys lit the fire and, to my mind, outweigh the expert evidence which is subject to limitations (discussed above) and, in any event, not definitive.Conclusion For these reasons, I conclude that the respondent has not established that the Wrigleys, or either of them, started the fire. It follows that there should be judgment for the Wrigleys in the amount of the home and contents insurance policy (less a small amount already advanced), there being no dispute about quantum. I will also make orders for interest (on the basis of figures provided to me during the trial) and costs (on the basis that costs follow the event). If either party wishes to be heard on these orders, the party may give notice in writing within three business days.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.