However, it was immaterial that the notification was in general terms, or that it lacked the identify of the claimant or the potential quantum of any claim. an insured must do this as soon as it is reasonably practicable after they have become aware of the facts.Ĭonsequently, the Court determined that section 40(3) requires sufficient connection between the facts notified and the claim subsequently made.an insured must provide to the insurer notice of facts that may give rise to a claim, and.The Court noted that section 40(3) had two limbs which must be satisfied: The key question for the Court was therefore whether notifying an Insurer of a ‘problem’ or ‘state of affairs’ would be deemed to be a valid notification for the purposes of section 40(3). Further, Allianz argued that Uniting was aware of the abuse allegations prior to when they notified Allianz, and as they had not notified Allianz as soon as it was reasonably practicable, they should not be entitled to the benefit of section 40(3). On the other hand, Allianz argued that Uniting could not rely upon an “accumulation of facts” notified to Allianz prior to the inception of the period of insurance of the policy in question. Uniting’s position was that section 40(3) was intended to operate in a manner that enabled insureds to notify an insurer of a ‘problem’ that may give rise to a claim. Uniting argued that the facts they provided to Allianz in their notifications of circumstances which might give rise to a claim were sufficient, and they had notified Allianz as soon as it was practicable to do so. In assessing Uniting’s Claim, the Court considered a number of issues, but most pertinently, it considered the operation of section 40(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act, which deals with notifications by insureds. Following the declinature of indemnity, Uniting commenced proceedings against Allianz, seeking an order that indemnity be granted. Potential claimants included those whose identities were not yet known, and who might come forward at some point in the future making allegations of abuse.Īllianz declined indemnity (or otherwise reserved its rights) for claims made by Uniting, due to issues it perceived with the nature of Uniting’s notifications. Prior to their policy with Allianz lapsing, brokers for Uniting issued a notification that there were “likely to be claims relating to: psychiatric injury and/or physical injury arising from physical assault, sexual assault, trespass to person, breach of fiduciary duty and/or negligence”. In the years 2003, 20, Uniting made four ‘bulk’ notifications of circumstances to Allianz of facts relating to allegations of historical abuse that occurred at a school governed by Uniting. Uniting had held insurance with Allianz from 1999 to 2011. The case arose from a long-running dispute between the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Uniting) and its insurer, Allianz Australia Limited (Alllianz). Earlier this year, the Federal Court in Australia handed down an important decision on the application of a notification of circumstances by insureds to their insurers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |