Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited v Betta Industries Pty Limited; Harlander Pty Limited (in liq) v New South Wales

[2002] NSWCA 323

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Insurance
2. › Public risk insurance
3. › Construction of policy
4. › Scope of risk covered
5. › Whether policy covering 'importers' extended to manufacturing activities
6. › Whether insurer's knowledge of insured's business activities relevant to construction
7. › Role of business records in determining scope of cover
1. Insurance
2. › Public risk insurance
3. › Evidence of policy terms
4. › Lost policy
5. › Whether inference of extended cover could be drawn from extrinsic evidence
6. › Sufficiency of evidence to support inference
1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Failure to warn
4. › State authority
5. › Whether State owed duty to warn of asbestos dangers
6. › Whether duty extended to contiguous bystander not handling asbestos
7. › Scope of knowledge required to found duty
8. › Relevance of State's actual knowledge to scope of duty
1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Statutory authority
4. › Omission to exercise power
5. › Whether six-factor test in Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee satisfied
6. › Foreseeability
7. › Knowledge of risk
8. › Vulnerability
9. › Control

Quick Take

An insurance policy must be construed by its terms and contract documents; the insurer's knowledge of the insured's actual business activities does not extend the scope of cover beyond the policy's endorsed description of the insured's interest. A duty of care to warn of asbestos dangers does not extend to a contiguous bystander not handling asbestos where the defendant's knowledge of the danger at the relevant time was limited to persons handling asbestos materials.