Alabama: The Devil Fools with the Best Laid Plans
Merkin, R
Date: 1 November 2019
Journal
Insurance Law Journal
Publisher
LexisNexis Australia
Abstract
The Supreme Court of New Zealand in Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd has
decided by a bare majority that the purchaser of a damaged building who has
also taken an assignment of the insurance claim relating to that building is
precluded from recovering anything more than the reduced value of the
building. If the policy also provides coverage ...
The Supreme Court of New Zealand in Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd has
decided by a bare majority that the purchaser of a damaged building who has
also taken an assignment of the insurance claim relating to that building is
precluded from recovering anything more than the reduced value of the
building. If the policy also provides coverage for rebuilding costs, the
assignee cannot recover such costs. However, the position of the assignee
could have been so much worse had the insurers refused all payment to the
assignee on the basis that the assured’s insurance claim had been satisfied
by payment of the purchase price. Could the insurers have done so? The
question turns on the correct interpretation of the decision of the House of
Lords in Burnand v Rodocanachi, which arose out of the activities of the
Confederate cruiser Alabama during the American Civil War. This article
examines the complex yet fascinating historical background of Burnand v
Rodocanachi, and highlights the limitations of the decision.
Law School
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
Item views 0
Full item downloads 0