Abstract

Article

The following  matters were discussed in Oceanview Developments Pty Ltd trading as Darwin River Tavern & Darwin River Supermarket v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd trading as Territory Insurance Office [2020] FCA 852.

Certain principles of construction derived fundamentally from decisions of the High Court are set out in Onley v Catlin Syndicate Ltd as the Underwriting Member of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2003 [2018] FCAFC 119; 360 ALR 92; 20 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-182 at [33]; AIG Australia Limited v Kaboko Mining Limited [2019] FCAFC 96; 20 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-205 at [42]–[43]; Dalby Bio-Refinery Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2019] FCAFC 85; 20 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-203 at [18]; Todd v Alterra at Lloyd’s Ltd [2016] FCAFC 15; 19 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-093 at [42]–[44]). See also Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313 at 384.

The unambiguous text of the policy is important: Cherry v Steele-Park [2017] NSWCA 295; 96 NSWLR 548 at [72], [1] and [119]; Mount Bruce Mining v Wright Prospecting 256 CLR at 116 [48]; Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd [1973] HCA 36; 129 CLR 99 at 109.

he character of a standard form policy the need for a stable meaning of its terms by reference to their plain and ordinary meaning may be influentiaal: CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club [1997] HCA 2; 187 CLR 384 at 389; McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia 203 CLR at 601.

Although competing constructions may be open, a choice must be made by reference to the po;icy’s text, context and purpose, with preference to one which supplies a congruent operation to the whole: Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association 129 CLR at 109; and Wilkie v Gordian Runoff 221 CLR at 529 [16].

Terms of the insurance promise of the policy, though wide, may still be confiined  to only a certain and limited subject matter that the context defines.Comment: it might be thought to be axiomatc that an expression containing a wide adjective to a narrow noun is limited to the scope of the noun.

In Caine v Lumley General [2008] NSWCA 4, it was found that a declaration of the value of property insured in a schedule, in the context of a policy that required that the appellants declare the value of all Property Insured, was a statement of the Property Insured. The list of declared assets in the Schedule was intended to comprehend all the major items of property.