Property owners are fighting arguments that claims in a class action over allegedly combustible cladding do not fall under a $190 million insurance policy’s definition of property damage, saying installing the cladding was like ādousing oneās house in keroseneā.
Insurer for cladding manufacturer Fairview Architectural, Vero Insurance, will argue a $190 million policy does not cover claims in a class action alleging combustible cladding caused losses for property owners, a court has heard.
A judge has allowed four ex-Linchpin directors facing possible fines by ASIC to put off filing evidence or amended defences in an investor class action after they claimed it would put them at risk of penalty in the corporate regulatorās proceedings.
Law firm Moray & Agnew has reached an agreement with insurer Arch Underwriting in its case seeking coverage of part of a $3.7 million settlement with Melbourne property developer Harry Stamoulis.
Although the settlement sum has not been disclosed, court documents in the Opal Tower class action reveal the litigation funder backing the case will seek $13.2 million in commission when the parties appear before the court later this year.
An appeals court has questioned the financial forecasting that underpinned a $13 million award of damages to a former client of Maddocks in a suit over negligent legal advice that allegedly led to a botched sale and administration.
Appealing a $13 million damages judgment for negligent advice to a former client that allegedly led to a botched sale and administration, law firm Maddocks told a court Monday the business had āminisculeā chances of surviving even if the sale had been successful.
The litigation funder backing two combustible cladding class actions has sold a third of its investment in the cases to a player in the nascent secondary market for class action financing.
A long-running class action over the Opal Tower disaster has settled,Ā along with two related cases over the defective building, as a five-week trial was set to begin.
Moray & Agnew is facing a lawsuit by a former client who says the firm breached its duties by making an unauthorised $3.3 million transfer while representing him on an investment in a Melbourne storage facility development.