Partnering with clients to provide on-demand contract lawyers, giving in-house legal teams the confidence to be agile.
Providing legal services to the insurance industry is about more than just giving the best advice. It requires deep industry understanding, an appreciation of issues and challenges facing insurers and the ability to adapt to changing client needs.
MinterEllison’s insurance practice is one of the largest in Australia and truly national. Our knowledge of the insurance industry is second to none and it enables us to tailor advice that focuses on the client and their business objectives. MinterEllison has been awarded 'Insurance Law Firm of the Year' at the Asia-Pacific Banking & Finance annual Insurance Awards each year from 2012 – 2016.
We are the only top tier law firm in Australia to maintain a comprehensive ‘front end’ practice (policy wording/drafting and advice, corporate advisory, reinsurance, agency agreements) and ‘back end’ claims practice (including professional indemnity, D&O, product liability, asbestos, life, marine, aviation, self insureds, government and industrial special risks). We also have significant expertise defending litigation (including class actions) on complex insurance issues.
We have strong professional links with peak industry bodies and consistently support associations through attendance, presentations, sponsorship and involvement in working groups. Our industry involvement assists us to advise clients effectively on the impact of legislative and regulatory changes.
In the Australian chapter of the International Comparative Legal Guide to Insurance & Reinsurance (2016 Edition), Partner Kemsley Brennan and Associate James Stanton explore insurance and reinsurance law in Australia.
Yesterday the High Court of Australia upheld the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) does not have power to investigate allegations that Ms Cunneen counselled a person to lie to police. This decision has serious implications for past and future corruption investigations and inquiries.
In the recent decision of The Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd v Lowe [2015] WASCA 38, the question of when excess liability policies are triggered came under close examination by the Court which held that for cover to be triggered under the excess policy under consideration, two requirements must be satisfied.
Two recent NSW Court of Appeal decisions highlight that what is an obvious risk under s 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) does not require the person registering a security interest to file the underlying security agreement with the PPSR. As an electronic register that permits registration to occur online, the PPSR is accordingly open to obvious abuse where a person is prepared to lodge a sham financing statement.
A key decision has provided confirmation of the purpose and effect of a number of key provisions relating to perfection, priority and vesting rules under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
In addition to the 191 Minter Ellison lawyers named in 2014 Best Lawyers Australia list, 23 of our partners have been singled out for an additional accolade – awarded the title of "Lawyer of the Year".
In Marshall v Prescott [2013] NSWCA 152, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the issue of common interest privilege and when insurers and insureds are likely to have a 'self-same' interest in proceedings. The court of appeal found that a common interest currently in existence will not be lost if it is possible that the parties’ interests may diverge in the future.
The Federal Court in Archer Capital 4A as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group plc (No 2) [2013] FCA 1098, recently considered the concepts of 'legal advice' and 'independence' in relation to claims for legal professional privilege. The decision is good news, suggesting a move away from ‘independence’ being a separate requirement for in-house counsel.
Recently the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a package of governance measures for banks, and general and life insurance companies. The new measures include Prudential Standard CPS 220 Risk Management, which will commence on 1 January 2015.
On 15 October 2013, a Bill to amend the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) was introduced into Parliament, outlining significant changes to the current scheme. In particular, the introduction of a threshold of more than a 5 per cent permanent impairment for an injured worker to be able to claim common law damages against their employer.
In a recent decision concerning the collapsed Great Southern Group, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided further guidance in relation to the operation of section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946. While the court's decision is useful for insurers and lawyers, section 6 remains problematic and ripe for change.
On 27 June 2013, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down his decision in the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors. This is the first Australian case to give substantial consideration to the priority of competing security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. The decision is a seminal one for insolvency practitioners and financiers, clarifying key provisions and rules under the PPSA.
On 9 May 2013 the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority released draft Prudential Standard CPS 220 – Risk Management, draft updated Prudential Standard CPS 510 – Governance and accompanying Discussion Paper – Harmonising Cross-Industry Risk Management Requirements, for public consultation. The standards affect ADIs and life and general insurers. APRA has proposed the cross-industry standards as part of its broader harmonisation and consolidation process, which has already seen the implementation of harmonised prudential standards on outsourcing, business continuity management, governance and fitness and propriety. However, in addition to harmonisation, the standards also include significant new risk management governance requirements.
In Matthew Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 115 delivered on 6 May 2013, the Western Australian Court of Appeal considered the appropriate statutory construction of s54(1) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and arrived at a different result to the Queensland Court of Appeal when applying it to a similar scenario. The Western Australian Court of Appeal took a broader view of the nature and type of insurance in issue.
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 10. By a 3-2 majority, the High Court has overturned a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal which had threatened to erode the protection of the proportionate liability regime. The High Court has found that there can be a single loss capable of apportionment even where there are entirely separate causes of the loss.
Treasury has released an exposure draft of the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013 (Cth) for public consultation, which reintroduces reforms to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) proposed by the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth) which lapsed in 2010 due to the prorogation of Parliament. This Alert discusses the key differences between the two Bills and provides a brief outline of the affected provisions of the Act.
The Federal Court (Micro Focus (US) Inc v State of New South Wales [2011] FCA 787) recently explained why provisions to protect public servants from legal action are limited to certain circumstances. This has raised the question of how effective immunity provisions are and what can be done about them.
A recent decision of the ACT Court of Appeal in Kemp v Ryan has highlighted the need for Calderbank letters to clearly set out what is being offered to resolve proceedings. Failure to do so can result in a Calderbank letter being rendered ineffective.
A recent decision in the ACT Supreme Court means that parties to personal injury proceedings are required to disclose otherwise privileged medical reports and investigative reports, even after proceedings have commenced. Although the decision, in Domenico Rinaudo v Nicholas Morris Cleary, is under appeal, presently all parties in ACT personal injury proceedings are required to disclose these documents — which may necessitate changes to case management strategy.
Although the Australian Consumer Law prohibits 'unfair terms' in any standard form consumer contract after 1 July 2010, insurance contracts have to date been specifically exempted from the unfair terms regime. But now Treasury has released a consultation paper on options for ensuring that consumers who purchase insurance have an equivalent level of protection as applies to the purchase of other financial products and services – including the removal of those exemptions.