In any event, it is not said in this case that professional service providers cannot limit liability unless their professional liability insurance. If Turner-Townsend had not made an explicit contractual commitment with respect to the amount of IP coverage, or if the IP coverage required was in fact much lower, the case may have taken a different path. There is an ongoing debate as to whether professional service providers, who clearly limit liability under their IP coverage, are at risk that liability caps may not apply. This case does not change this debate. Many people think that their insurance policies will cover all their debts, but they often contain political conditions and exclusions. For example, insurance policies may be excluded: Ampleforth`s directors were not informed of the changes to the standard terms and the judge acknowledged that there was a “strength” in their lawyer`s argument that it was “wrong” that after establishing a relationship of trust from two previous projects, he ,… TTPM [Turner -Townsend] had to introduce this draconian notion, which was totally incompatible with the requirement of substantial professional liability insurance, without dismissal or special discussion. The judge ruled that the border was inappropriate and therefore unenforceable. The “central factor” relied upon by the judge was that Turner-Townsend had entered into a $10 million professional liability insurance contract, which was well above the liability limit.
The judge found that the Ampleforth Trustees had in fact paid for access to $10 million in occupational compensation (PI) and it was therefore inappropriate to deny access to this insurance: the main verdict was rendered by Barrett AJA, with whom Meagher J. agreed. His tribute noted that the agreement between Weir and Phil Gold was not “reasonable regulation.” After his tribute, an assured duty of the dam was not crystallized, established and determined by the contract. The arbitration award alone would have crystallized Weir`s liability for compensating Phil Gold, and in this case the court found that Weir had no liability. In its recent decision, the NSW Court of Appeal (NSWCA) upheld Hammerschlag J`s decision in Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd against AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance , providing guidance on a number of important interpretation issues relating to liability assurance. Was the Cap and Collar agreement a legal responsibility covered by the directive? Only if your client really understands can you then move on to discussions about allocating risk with the other party, with the confidence that you will get insurance requirements that reflect the actual coverage managed by that party. A recent case in the NSW Court of Appeal provides a reminder of the use of cap-and-pass agreements and how they may affect coverage under the Broadform liability policy and the interpretation of exclusions for professional services. In Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v. AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance  NSWCA 100 (Weir), the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed Weir`s complaint of the decision that an insurer (AXA) does not bear the arbitration or liability costs resulting from a cape and neck agreement. In December 2013, Phil Gold launched arbitration proceedings against Weir and claimed substantial damages for compensation and interruption of service. Before the final arbitration premium was set, Phil Gold and Weir entered into a Cap and Collar agreement that provided that the financial cap would be worth their weight in gold, as it offered you a certain limit of liability agreed upon in advance.
This is important if you rely on your insurance policy to cover your debts. However, it is unlikely that an employer will suffer significant harm in violation of the IPI clause. IPI obligations in a contract may at most require a party to notify the employer if it has not maintained the agreed level of insurance.