![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() It provided excess cover where Underlying Insurance indemnified the Insured or when payment was made under the Underlying Insurance up to the Underlying Limit. Clause 8.17 provided conditions of excess cover where Underlying Insurance was arranged and conditions where the Allianz policy would be deemed the Master Policy. The Allianz policy contained two ‘excess’ clauses. Allianz paid out the claim and sought contribution from Lloyd’s. Both covered the damages paid to the worker. Baulderstone was insured by two public liability insurance policies, one from Allianz and one from Lloyd’s. Baulderstone paid damages and claimed on its insurance. BackgroundĪ worker, employed by Baulderstone, was injured when hit by a car. With little authority on this exact point, the Court applied basic principles of contractual interpretation and the ‘two-stage approach’, to find that there was no double insurance. In this decision, delivered on 24 April 2019, Rees J in the NSW Supreme Court considered whether there was double insurance where an Insured held two public liability policies for the same risk, one containing an ‘excess clause’ and the other an ‘escape clause’. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |