๐…๐ž๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐€๐ฎ๐ญ๐จ & ๐†๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ž ๐š๐ง ๐ฎ๐ง๐Ÿ๐š๐ข๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ฌ

  • Compliance Advocacy Solutions
  • Bills
  • Family
  • News
  • ๐…๐ž๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐€๐ฎ๐ญ๐จ & ๐†๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ž ๐š๐ง ๐ฎ๐ง๐Ÿ๐š๐ข๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ฌ

A term requiring insureds to notify A&G of any changes to their home & contents was not unfair under the ASIC Act

1. The proceedings concern home/contents insurance which contained certain notification obligations on the part of the insureds.

2. The PDS contained a number of references that explained certain matters relevant to the notification obligations (see paras 4-11 of the judgment).

3. Relevantly, the PDS contained 11 examples of changes A&G wanted the insured to tell them about

4. The offending clause, which preceded the 11 examples stated, ‘you need to tell us if ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด changes about your home & contents.’ This Notification Clause was the focus of ASICโ€™s claim

5. Evidence concerning the processes for applying for cover (p12-22) & claim assessment (p23-30) was led by A&G

6. The Crt considered relevant provisions of Unfair Contract Terms (ASIC Act) & Utmost Good Faith (ICA)

7. The Crt rejected the literal meaning of ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด.

8. The Crt accepted that the requirement in the Notification Clause was restricted to notify A&G โ€œif anything changesโ€ concerned the information already provided by the insured to A&G. (refer 2 & 3 above)

9. The Crt held that the duty of UGF operates to limit what A&G can do under the Notification Clause in response to an insuredโ€™s failure to notify it of the relevant changes.

10. The Crt determined, upon the proper construction of the Notification Clause, the contracts of insurance contained a term that:

(a) the insured must notify A&G if, during the term of the policy, there was any change to the information about the insuredโ€™s home or contents that the insured had disclosed to A&G prior to entry into the contract; &

(b) if the insured failed to notify A&G of such changes, it had the right to refuse to pay a claim, reduce the amount it paid, cancel the contract or not offer to renew the contract if & to the extent that it would be consistent with commercial standards of decency & fairness for A&G to do so

11. The Crt applied the 3 limb test for ‘unfair clauses’ & held

a. s54 (ICA) operates to ensure that A&Gโ€™s powers to refuse or reduce claims would not cause a ๐™จ๐™ž๐™œ๐™ฃ๐™ž๐™›๐™ž๐™˜๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ž๐™ข๐™—๐™–๐™ก๐™–๐™ฃ๐™˜๐™š in the rights & obligations of the parties arising under the contract

b. ๐™‹๐™ง๐™ค๐™ฉ๐™š๐™˜๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™ก๐™š๐™œ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ข๐™–๐™ฉ๐™š ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™จ of A&G – s54 & UGF constrains A&G to the extent that only a failure to notify a change in information that has prejudiced its interests is relevant

c. The Crt accepted ASIC’s submission that the lack of clarity in the Notification Clause ๐™˜๐™–๐™ช๐™จ๐™š๐™™ ๐™™๐™š๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ž๐™ข๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ to the insured

๐˜พ๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™˜๐™ก๐™ช๐™จ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ

The Crt found that as only 1 of the 3 criteria of an unfair term was met, ASIC failed to establish that the Notification Clause is unfair