Category: Insurance

Posted on

Construing a policy of insurance

As the policy is a commercial contract, the Court should, in construing it, “ask what a reasonable businessperson would have understood [the relevant] terms to mean”: Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 (Electricity Generation) at [35].

The task is an objective one; it involves identifying the imputed intention of the parties, by reference to the contractual text construed in the light of its context and purpose: Electricity Generation at [35]; Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 (Mount Bruce) at [46]-[51] and [108]-[109]; Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd [2016] HCA 5; (2016) 90 ALJR 392 at [51]-[75]; Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85; [2016] HCA 47; (2016) 91 ALJR 108 at [18].

Importantly, in their joint judgment in Mount Bruce, French CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ said (at [48]) that: Ordinarily, this process of construction is possible by reference to the contract alone. Indeed, if an expression in a contract is unambiguous or susceptible of only one meaning, evidence of surrounding circumstances (events, circumstances and things external to the contract) cannot be adduced to contradict its plain meaning. (Footnote omitted)

Their Honours also emphasised that “context” may be discerned from the entire text of the contract in question: at [46].

Posted on

Interpretation of insurance exclusion clauses

The applicable principles are as follows:

There was also no issue about the principles which govern the resolution of what lies in issue as to the proper construction of the endorsement to this insurance policy.

Where an insurance company prepares the document, it is bound to make its meaning as clear as possible: Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305; [1920] HCA 64. “A policy of insurance, even one required by statute, is a commercial contract and should be given a businesslike interpretation. Interpreting a commercial document requires attention to the language used by the parties, the commercial circumstances which the document addresses, and the objects which it is intended to secure”: McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579; [2000] HCA 65 at [22].

The meaning of commercial documents must be determined objectively, their construction being determined by what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have understood them to mean, which requires consideration both of the text of the documents and also the surrounding circumstances: Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451; [2004] HCA 35 at [22].

If there is ambiguity, resort can also be had to the surrounding circumstances known to the parties: Codelfa Construction Pty Limited v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352; [1982] HCA 24.

The interpretation of an exclusion clause “is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in the light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract, and, where appropriate, construing the clause contra proferentem in case of ambiguity.”: Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 at 510 [1986] HCA 82.

Where two meanings are open, “it is proper to adopt that meaning that will avoid consequences that appear irrational and unjust”: Public Transport Commission of New South Wales v J Murray-More (NSW) Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 336 at 350; [1975] HCA 28. Further, in the event of ambiguity it is proper to give a construction “that would avoid irrational consequences that it is unlikely that the parties intended”: Distillers Co Bio-chemicals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1974) 130 CLR 1 at 11; [1974] HCA 3.

A court may also depart from the “strictly literal meaning of a particular expression to place upon it an alternative construction which is more reasonable and more in accord with the probable intention of the parties if the words will bear that construction.”: Australian Casualty Co Ltd v Federico (1986) 160 CLR 513 at 520; [1986] HCA 32.

The contra proferentem rule is one of last resort, however, applying only when ambiguity remains after all other avenues of construction have been exhausted: Beefeater Sales International Pty Ltd v MIS Funding No 1 Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 217.

From

Posted on

How to construe an insurance policy

From: Muriniti; Newell v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 311 beginning at [39]

Legal principles

The principles governing the construction of insurance policies are well established and were not in dispute. In McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579; [2000] HCA 65, Gleeson CJ stated, at [22]:

“A policy of insurance, even one required by statute, is a commercial contract and should be given a businesslike interpretation. Interpreting a commercial document requires attention to the language used by the parties, the commercial circumstances which the document addresses, and the objects which it is intended to secure.” (footnotes omitted)

This statement was cited with approval by the High Court in Wilkie v Gordian Runoff (2005) 221 CLR 522; [2005] HCA 17 at [15], the Court adding, at [16]:

“In construing the policy, as with other instruments, preference is given to a construction supplying a congruent operation to the various components of the whole.” (footnote omitted)

In Zhang v ROC Services (NSW) Pty Ltd; National Transport Insurance by its manager NTI Ltd v Zhang (2016) 93 NSWLR 561; [2016] NSWCA 370 Leeming JA observed, at [86]:

“Where there is more than one available legal meaning, a court looks at the text, context and purpose, with a view to determining which potential meaning best accords with those considerations. Sometimes, text, context and purpose all point in the same direction, and all support the same conclusion as to the legal meaning of the contractual provision; that was the case in Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd (2016) 328 ALR 564; [2016] HCA 5 at [51] and [75]. Sometimes, as here, text, context and purpose point in different directions. But it remains necessary to assess the potentially available legal meanings against those matters.”

Leeming JA found the observations of Mance LJ in Gan Insurance Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1047; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299 of assistance where there is a constructional choice as to the proper meaning of a contract or a term of a contract. In Gan Insurance Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2), the concern was with a clause which had at least two possible meanings. Mance LJ stated, at [16]:

“… In these circumstances, it is especially important to undertake the exercise on which the judge declined to embark, that is to consider the implications of each interpretation. In my opinion, a court when construing any document should always have an eye to the consequences of a particular construction, even if they often only serve as a check on an obvious meaning or a restraint upon adoption of a conceivable but unbusinesslike meaning.”

This passage was unanimously approved by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900; [2011] UKSC 50; at [26]. See also the observations to the same effect in Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99; [1973] HCA 36 per Gibbs J at 109, upon which the primary judge relied:

“It is trite law that the primary duty of a court in construing a written contract is to endeavour to discover the intention of the parties from the words of the instrument in which the contract is embodied. Of course the whole of the instrument has to be considered, since the meaning of any one part of it may be revealed by other parts, and the words of every clause must if possible be construed so as to render them all harmonious one with another.”