Catchwords:
INSURANCE — insured manufactures health care products and infant formula — COVID-19 pandemic — insured decides to make hand sanitiser — insured also seeks industrial special risks (ISR) policy with $26.8 million limit of indemnity — insured imports bulk ethanol, exceeding capacity of dangerous good area — ethanol placed next to factory — fire — total loss — whether insured entitled to indemnity. BROKERS — broker arranges ISR policy — insured changes broker — former broker cancels policy — whether authority to cancel policy — principles at [202]-[205] — policy remained on foot. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE — agreement to vary the contract — s 11(9), Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) — policy schedule and wording completely replaced — scope of duty of disclosure — principles at [219]-[222] — duty applied to matters material to whole contract — whether duty of disclosure complied with — s 21(1)(b), Insurance Contracts Act — principles at [301]-[305] — duty not complied with. WAIVER — s 21(2)(d), Insurance Contracts Act — principles at [277]-[283] — no fair presentation of the risk — insurer not put on enquiry. ENDORSEMENT — unintended or inadvertent non-disclosure — proper construction at [236]-[239]. ENDORSEMENT — alteration in risk — whether alteration “neither known to nor made by an officer of the Insured who is responsible for Insurance” — proper construction at [249]-[257]. INSURANCE — remedies — whether insurer entitled to reduce liability to nil under s 28(3), Insurance Contracts Act — whether insurer entitled to refuse to pay insured’s claim under s 54(2), Insurance Contracts Act — principles at [323]-[325] —insurer entitled to relief sought. ADMISSIONS — ss 81, 87, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) — principles at [25]-[32] — deponent not a party to proceedings nor employee of a party — plaintiffs part of corporate group which employed deponent — deponent did not thrust himself on the court to give evidence in the plaintiffs’ case but was chosen by them — “reasonably open to find” that he had authority to make admissions. JONES v DUNKEL — inference where onus of proof is not on you — principles at [14]-[18] — inference may still be drawn.