Following the trial of the class action, SunWater paid a substantial sum to settle the claims made against it in the class action. It then sought an indemnity from its insurers (which included the plaintiff in this proceeding, Liberty) pursuant to a General and Products Liability and Professional Indemnity Policy (Policy) (and various excess layers). Liberty denied indemnity, and in doing so relied upon an exclusion clause in the Policy which excluded liability for claims “arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional advice or service for a fee by The Insured”. In this proceeding, Liberty sought declaratory relief that the exclusion clause was engaged and that it was therefore not liable to indemnify SunWater. SunWater denied that the exclusion clause was engaged, and relied on the following contentions.
First, while SunWater accepted that it had provided a ‘service’ to Seqwater; and that the services which Mr Ayre had provided to Seqwater were a ‘professional service’ within the meaning of the exclusion clause; it contended that SunWater itself (being the insured under the Policy) had not provided a ‘professional service’ to Seqwater within the meaning of the clause. Instead, it argued that it had essentially provided a labour hire service to Seqwater, and that the ‘professional service’ (being the flood management services) were provided by Mr Ayre to Seqwater. However, Stevenson J rejected that argument, finding that on the proper construction of the ‘Service Level Agreement’ between SunWater and Seqwater, it was SunWater that was providing the ‘professional service’, and that it simply did so through its employee, Mr Ayre. His Honour did not consider that anything that was said in the judgment of Beech-Jones J at first instance in the class action was to the contrary (at -).
Secondly, SunWater contended that the exclusion clause, on its proper construction, only applied in respect of claims made against it by the same person to whom the ‘professional advice or service’ was rendered (being, in this case, Seqwater), and did not apply to claims made against it by other third parties (i.e. the plaintiff and class members in the class action). After a lengthy review of several authorities which concerned similar exclusion clauses, his Honour rejected SunWater’s contention and found that there was no textual support for such a construction (at -).
Thus, his Honour concluded (at ) that:
… the claim made against SunWater by the group members in the class action proceedings, now resolved by the Settlement Deed, is a claim “arising out of the rendering of [sic] failure to render professional advice or service for a fee” and is excluded from cover by the Exclusion in the Primary Policy.
Supreme Court of New South Wales, Stevenson J,
3 December 2021
Plaintiff’s Solicitors: YPOL Lawyers;
Defendants’ Solicitors: Allens / HWL Ebsworth Lawyers / Clyde & Co;
Plaintiff’s Funder: N/A
Austlii Link: Available here
We're Australia's leading class action practice, and we've obtained more than $4.2 billion in settlements for our clients.
We have lawyers who specialise in a range of legal claims who travel to Australian Capital Territory. If you need a lawyer in Canberra or elsewhere in Australian Capital Territory, please call us on 1800 675 346.
We have lawyers who specialise in a range of legal claims who travel to Tasmania. If you need a lawyer in Hobart, Launceston or elsewhere in Tasmania, please call us on 1800 675 346.