In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held a bankrupt, Berryman, was able to maintain legal action in his own name, claiming TPD insurance benefits from Zurich.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) relevantly provides:

A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

FI and D&O Since our last update, there have been significant developments in the FI and D&O landscape. November saw the first ever UK deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) announced between the SFO and Standard Bank. The DPA process has been available but unused since 2014 so the judgment and the SFO’s comments thereafter provided some much needed guidance on what the process involved. Significantly, weight was placed on Standard Bank’s early self-reporting and cooperation.

The increasing trend to use Third Party Declaratory Relief Applications against Insurers

Overview

A third party claimant, not a party to a policy of insurance, can seek recourse to the proceeds of that policy, through the application of either the Corporations Act (ss 562 and 601AG), the Bankruptcy Act (s117) or the Insurance Contracts Act (s 51).

Summary

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Re HIH Insurance Ltd (In Liquidation)¹ has potentially significant implications for securities class actions where there are allegations that a listed company has failed to disclose material information to the market and/or engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct causing the company's shares to trade at an inflated price.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Background

The High Court recently heard an appeal brought by CGU Insurance from a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging a declaration that CGU was liable to indemnify Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Akron”) in interrelated proceedings.

Key Points:

In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.

The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:

Executive summary

On 11 February 2016 the High Court delivered a unanimous judgment¹ which clears the path for liquidators and others to join insurers of defendants to proceedings, enabling the determination at the same trial as to whether an insurer has an obligation to indemnify defendants in respect of any liability that may be found against those defendants.