Insights Insights
  1. Separating the Biowood from the ACPs - An Update

    17 November 2021 | Insurance & Health Law

    Supreme Court endorses the finding of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) Appeal Panel’s decision that Biowood installed on a residential building in Ryde constitutes in an “undue risk” of fire under the Building Code of...

  2. Court of Appeal reapportions liability for Lacrosse apartment tower fire

    3 June 2021 | Insurance & Health Law

    In March, we reported on the outcome of the appeal in the Lacrosse dispute. The Court of Appeal recently handed down a judgement on the apportionment of liability which we discuss below.

  3. Form trumps substance as builder escapes liability for fire

    29 March 2021 | Insurance & Health Law

    In this important case, the Court of Appeal has endorsed the view that whether a cause of action is apportionable will be determined by reference to the form, rather than the substance of the claim clarifying the correct approach to determining whether a claim is apportionable.

  4. Property Insurance Update – Second Australian COVID-19 Business Interruption Test Case

    25 February 2021 | Insurance & Health Law

    On 24 February 2021, proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court of Australia to examine further issues with respect to COVID-19 and the coverage of business interruption policies in Australia. The Insurance Council of Australia’s media release...

  5. UK Supreme Court appeal decision on COVID-19 business interruption cover

    4 February 2021 | Insurance & Health Law

    The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the High Court which largely found in favour of policyholders in respect of business interruption coverage for COVID-19 claims. The Court also determined that the Orient Express Hotels...

  6. Property Insurance Update - COVID-19 not excluded in policies referring to the “Quarantine Act”

    23 November 2020 | Insurance & Health Law

    In a unanimous decision, the NSW Court of Appeal held that an exclusion in the infectious diseases extension for quarantinable diseases under the “Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) and subsequent amendments” could not be construed as meaning listed...

Load More