The Court held that the defined term 'Employer' in a group life insurance policy TPD definition means the specific employer named in the policy schedule, not any employer, and the insurer's contrary construction was a misconstruction of the contract. However, the misconstruction was immaterial because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second limb of the TPD definition — the insurer was justified in forming the opinion that the plaintiff was not unlikely ever to return to regular remunerative work, given medical evidence of fitness for full-time work near the assessment date and the plaintiff's actual subsequent employment history. On causation in the first limb, the Court held that an employee's resignation does not automatically break the causal link between injury and absence from employment; the injury need only be a real and effective cause of the absence, not the sole cause.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.