Welcome to our General Insurance Insights Newsletter, bringing you the latest case notes on key judgments from May to July 2026 affecting general insurers in Australia.

Dennison v Brisbane City Council [2026] QSC 83

On 18 December 2009, the plaintiff was on one of his regular morning bicycle rides, when, at approximately 4:15am, he collided with an orange mesh barricade that had been temporarily erected by the defendant across a footpath. As a result, he impaled his left eye on a metal stake and suffered a traumatic brain injury with resultant frontal lobe dementia.

The day before the incident, the defendant’s work crew had excavated part of the footpath to carry out underground water-main works. The crew subsequently filled the excavation, re-concreted the footpath and erected the barricade while the concrete cured overnight. The barricade covered most of the footpath, but left a narrow strip near the road for pedestrian passage. There were no warning signs and the barricade was not reflective nor illuminated. There was also no effective lighting in the immediate area, which meant that, at the time of the incident, there was poor visibility.

The defendant admitted that it owed a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of persons using the footpath, but disputed that it had breached that duty on the basis that it took all reasonable precautions to manage the risks associated with the barricade.

The Court rejected that argument and found that the precautions taken by the defendant to illuminate, warn of, delineate and guide pedestrians around the barricade at night were deficient and would, ordinarily, amount to negligence based on normal principles. However, the defendant was ultimately successful in its defence based on s36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied. That section provides that, in a proceeding relating to the function of a public authority, an act or omission of the authority does not constitute a wrongful exercise or failure unless the act or omission was so unreasonable that no public authority could properly consider the act or omission to be a reasonable exercise of its functions.

The Court found that the section’s application extended to claims in negligence, as well as breach of statutory duty, and that the defendant’s footpath works formed part of its statutory functions. In those circumstances and in the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff as to what a reasonable council would have done in the circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that the defendant’s failures were so unreasonable in the circumstances to satisfy the threshold level. That was despite the fact that its failures constituted a breach of relevant standards and guidelines, and its own internal policies.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Ibbett v Debilu Ltd t/as Ravesis on Bondi Beach [2026] NSWDC 129

On 30 July 2022, the plaintiff was a patron at Hotel Ravesis in Bondi Beach, when she became involved in an incident between a security guard and an intoxicated patron. That patron headbutted and assaulted the security guard and, when the plaintiff attempted to assist, the plaintiff, the security guard and the patron fell to the ground, causing the plaintiff to sustain a serious right ankle injury.

The first defendant was owner and occupier of the venue, the second defendant was the company who supplied security services to the venue and the third defendant was a subcontractor that supplied the security guards, including the security guard involved in the incident, to the second defendant. Default judgment was entered against the third defendant before trial and it later went into liquidation.

None of the plaintiff’s pleaded allegations of negligence against the first defendant were made out on the evidence. In particular, the Court rejected the arguments that there was insufficient security guards rostered on, that the first defendant failed to monitor the alcohol consumption of the patron and that its staff received any complaints in relation to his behaviour. Notably, the Court was critical of the time it took the first defendant’s staff to respond to the altercation, which would likely have averted the plaintiff’s involvement in the altercation, and indeed found that the plaintiff would have succeeded against the first defendant if that was pleaded. However, it was not.

In relation to the second defendant, the Court found that the first defendant’s delegation of responsibility (to the second defendant) was limited to the provision of security services. On that basis, the Court found the only ground upon which the second defendant could be found liable was if it was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the other security guards who failed to respond to repeated requests for back up made by the security guard (who was involved in the incident) prior to the assault. That liability was not made out, as there was no transfer of employment by the third defendant and, it confirmed, dual vicarious liability was not available.

Accordingly, the claims against both the first and second defendants were dismissed and judgment was entered in their favour.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Polyaire Pty Ltd v 167 Prospect Highway Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 79

The appellant and the respondent entered into a lease for a warehouse premises in Seven Hills, NSW. On 3 November 2018, there was a fire that destroyed the premises and an adjoining warehouse owned by the respondent. The fire originated from and was caused by air-conditioning components that the appellant had stored on pallets on an outdoor hardstand packed in cardboard and wrapped in plastic. Rainwater collected on the plastic, creating an ‘aqua lens’ that concentrated sunlight onto the cardboard, causing it to ignite and start the fire.

At first instance, the NSW Supreme Court found the appellant liable to the respondent for the cost to reinstate both premises, as well as loss of profit, totalling approximately $15.18 million. That finding was based on several terms of the lease between the parties, including that:

1. The appellant would indemnify the respondent against loss and damage, whether by act, omission or neglect of the appellant, arising from a list of specified matters, including the escape of fire caused or contributed to by the appellant; the appellant’s use of the warehouse; and an accident on or about the premises.
2. The appellant must reinstate any part of the premises comprised of a warehouse in its original form.

In relation to the indemnity clause, the appellant argued, on appeal, that its storage of the pallets did not legally ’cause’  the fire and that the real cause, was the elements operating through the ‘aqua lens‘. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and found that the storage of the pallets outside, exposed to the elements, was both a material and proximate cause of the fire, as it was foreseeable, and indeed certain, that storing the pallets in that matter would expose them to the elements that created a foreseeable fire risk.

In relation to the reinstatement obligation, the appellant argued that ‘reinstatement’ should not be equated with reconstruction, and that reinstating a warehouse ‘to its original form’ presupposes that the warehouse still exists. That argument was also rejected by the Court of Appeal and endorsed the trial judge’s view that the obligation to reinstate went beyond repair and encompassed the complete reconstruction of the warehouse. Further, this express contractual obligation displaced the statutory covenant in s84(1)(b) of the Conveyancing Act 1919, which might otherwise have relieved a tenant, like the appellant, from liability for accidental fire damage.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Ward v Endeavour Coal Pty Limited [2026] NSWSC 557

On 20 May 2021, the plaintiff, a mechanical fitter, was travelling as a passenger in a specialised mining vehicle (SMV) driven by a labour-hire worker at Appin Colliery NSW when he suffered a crush injury to his left arm.

On the first day of hearing, the plaintiff elected to proceed against the second defendant, the mine operator and his direct employer, and the third defendant, the labour hire company and the employer of the SMV driver, only.

The precise circumstances of the accident were disputed. The plaintiff alleged that the driver drove the SMV so close to a stored salter that the vehicle and the salter made contact, causing the plaintiff’s elbow to be crushed. The driver maintained that the plaintiff’s arm must have been protruding from the cabin and denied that the SMV struck the salter. The NSW Supreme Court ultimately preferred the plaintiff’s evidence and found that, as the vehicle drove past the salter, the SMV was driven so close to it that there was contact between the two, and the plaintiff’s elbow was struck and crushed.

In doing so, the Court found that the SMV driver was negligent, because he was aware of the salter’s presence but failed to exercise reasonable care by attempting to drive through a narrow gap without first stopping to inspect the available clearance, slowing further and/or choosing not to proceed. In other words, the driver misjudged the available space and drove unnecessarily close to the salter.

The Court held that the second defendant was liable because, as the plaintiff’s employer, it owed him a non-delegable duty of care and failed to ensure that reasonable care was taken for his safety. The negligence of the driver, a person to whom it had delegated the task of driving the plaintiff, constituted a breach of that duty. The claim against the third defendant was dismissed, because, the Court found, the practical control, training, supervision and direction of the driver’s work had been transferred by the third defendant to and rested with the second defendant, such that the second defendant was the driver’s employer pro hac vice for the purposes of the relevant task and the third defendant was, therefore, not vicariously liable for his conduct.

Despite evidence that the plaintiff’s elbow was protruding from the SMV, contrary to his training, the Court rejected the defendants’ allegation of contributory negligence. The Court was not satisfied that such an action was done deliberately by the plaintiff. Therefore, having regard to the relevant circumstances, it constituted mere inadvertence, rather than a failure by the plaintiff to take care for his own safety.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant for approximately $3.5 million.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Danbol Pty Ltd v ACN 007 198 343 Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 305

The plaintiff owned a warehouse in Tottenham, Victoria, which was insured under an industrial special risks policy arranged through its broker, the defendant. In June 2018, a new tenant took occupation of the premises. The plaintiff understood, and informed the broker, that the tenant would use the warehouse to store decommissioned gas bottles. In fact, the tenant later began unlawfully storing large quantities of highly flammable chemicals.

Prior to the expiration of the policy, the broker notified the insurer of the new tenant and its intended activities. On 24 August 2018, the insurer declined to automatically renew the policy, but offered a 14-day extension while further enquiries were made. Following clarification that the gas bottles were decommissioned off-site, the insurer offered a 12-month renewal on 29 August 2018, backdated to commence from 24 August 2018. The broker failed to communicate either offer to the plaintiff nor did it accept either on its behalf.

On 30 August 2018, a fire occurred and the warehouse was destroyed. Expert evidence established that the stored chemicals significantly increased the intensity and duration of the fire, but the actual ignition source was not identified. The plaintiff, believing it had insurance in place, lodged a claim for indemnity in relation to the losses resulting from the fire. That claim was declined on the basis that no policy was in force at the time, following which the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant in the Victorian Supreme Court alleging negligence and breach of contract.

The defendant admitted it breached its duty of care and retainer by failing to communicate the insurer’s offers. The principal issue was whether that breach was causative of the plaintiff’s loss.

Pursuant to s52 of the Wrongs Act 1958 and the common law, the Court confirmed that the plaintiff bore the onus of establishing that, on the balance of probabilities, a notional insurer would have indemnified the plaintiff under either a hypothetical interim or annual renewal policy. This required the plaintiff to not on establish that a policy would have existed, but it would have responded to the claim and, in doing so, would not have relied on alteration of use provision to reduce its liability under s54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 or a misrepresentation defence.

The Court found that the relevant alteration of use (being the tenant’s introduction of the relevant flammable chemicals) occurred after the date the hypothetical interim policy would have been entered into, but before the date of commencement of the hypothetical annual renewal policy. That meant the insurer would have been able to rely on s54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to defeat a claim under the hypothetical interim policy, but not the hypothetical annual renewal policy.

The Court also rejected the misrepresentation argument, finding that the plaintiff honestly and reasonably believed the premises would be used by the tenant to store decommissioned gas bottles and had no knowledge of the tenant’s unlawful storage of the relevant chemicals.

On those grounds, the Court held that a hypothetical annual renewal policy would have responded and that the broker’s failure to communicate that renewal offer was causative of the plaintiff’s loss. Judgment was, therefore, entered in the plaintiff’s favour, including an award of $9.68 million in damages.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Nestle Australia Ltd v Healey [2026] VSCA 171

The appellant operated a food production factory in north-eastern Victoria where it manufactured Uncle Toby’s muesli bars and Le Snak products. The respondent was employed by the appellant having worked at the factory intermittently since the mid-1990s and continuously on a full-time basis from January 2017. On 8 July 2017, the respondent was directed to clean machinery in a filling room using various cleaning chemicals, including Topax 686, while a separate cleaning-in-place process involving other chemicals was being carried out simultaneously. During that shift, the respondent developed a cough, headache and flu-like symptoms, which persisted and ultimately led to diagnoses of reactive airways dysfunction syndrome and reactive airways laryngeal dysfunction syndrome.

The respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant, seeking damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (Regulations). The appellant accepted that the respondent had suffered the relevant injuries and the causal relationship to her workplace conditions, but denied fault. At first instance, the jury rejected the respondent’s claim in negligence, but found the appellant breached the Regulations, awarding $480,000 in damages. The appellant appealed the judgment, arguing, amongst other matters, that the relevant chemicals, when used in their diluted form, did not constitute hazardous substances.

On appeal, the Court held it was open to the jury to find that the appellant breached the Regulations by failing to control the risk of hazardous chemicals mixing to generate chlorine gas and by failing to prevent the cleaning process overlapping with the chemical discharge process, either of which could have caused the respondent’s injury. In doing so, the Court emphasised the high threshold for overturning a jury verdict, relying on the decision of John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Revkin, which held that, in determining whether a civil jury acted reasonably in reaching its verdict, an appellate court must approach the evidence on the basis most favourable to the respondent to the appeal, and cannot overturn the verdict merely because the jury may have reached a different conclusion. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

Bevan v Smith [2026] NSWDC 260

The plaintiff and the defendant were neighbours and owners of two lots in a strata scheme. They shared a common driveway and each owned a dog.

On 18 December 2020, the plaintiff was carrying her dog, Gracie, when the defendant’s German Shepherd, Evie, jumped up on her, moved away after being told to stop, then ran back and jumped on her again. The second jump knocked the plaintiff to the ground, causing a fracture to the distal radius in her right wrist that required surgical fixation with a plate and screws. There were no witnesses, but the defendant did not challenge the plaintiff’s account.

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant under s25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, which provides that an owner is liable for bodily injury caused by their dog ‘wounding or attacking’ a person. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleged negligence.

The main issue in dispute was whether Evie’s conduct amounted to an ‘attack’ under s25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998. Relying on Sarkis v Morrison, the Court held that s25 applies only where the dog’s conduct involves aggression or other deliberate conduct directed at the person. In this case, Evie did not bark, growl, snarl, bite, scratch or otherwise display aggression. Rather, the evidence suggested playful or over-enthusiastic behaviour.

The plaintiff’s negligence claim also failed. The Court held that the risk of Evie jumping on the plaintiff and knocking her over was not reasonably foreseeable. There was no evidence that Evie had previously jumped on people, behaved aggressively or exhibited dangerous tendencies. The two dogs had interacted, without incident, for a number of years and there was no reason for the defendant to anticipate the risk of the behaviour that occurred on this occasion.

Judgment was entered for the defendant and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.

Click here to view the full case.(opens in new tab)

This article was written by Ashley Harding, Partner, Madeleine Dashiell, Solicitor and Claudia Albert, Solicitor.