tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Monday, May 25th, 6:00PM

Insurance

rss
Latest Headlines

Dispute over $2 mill life policy heads back to court

A protracted legal battle over AXA's refusal to pay out on the life insurance policy of a murdered Bangladeshi migrant is heading back to court after the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's summary judgment against payment.

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 6:00AM

by Owen Poland

The dispute relates to a $2 million dollar life policy which Abdur Miah and his wife Afrouza took out with AXA 11 months before Mrs Miah, who was a New Zealand citizen, was murdered by her brother-in-law during a visit to Bangladesh in May 2007.

Mr Miah was acquitted of any involvement in the crime, however because he was bankrupted a month prior to his wife's death AXA refused to pay his insurance claim on the grounds of material non-disclosure of his financial difficulties.

Legal action followed, but when Mr Miah's suit against AXA came before the High Court in 2015, Associate Judge Doogue granted AXA's application for summary judgement to strike the matter out on the basis that there was no seriously arguable claim.

The strike out decision was subsequently challenged in the Court of Appeal where Mr Miah successfully argued that, as the executor of his wife's will, he had a valid claim to her half of the policy.

In its recently released judgement, the Court of Appeal says that under High Court rules the discretion to enter summary judgement can only be invoked if the defendant (AXA) satisfies the Court that "none of the causes of action in the plaintiffs statement of claim can succeed". As such, the matter should not have been struck out because it is arguable that at the time of her death Mrs Miah's estate had an interest in the policy.

We disagree with Associate Judge Doogue when he concludes that the policy "does not contain any express provision prescribing to whom payment is to be made on the occurrence of the death of the life insured: It did contain an express provision; there was to be payment to the two named owners jointly.

In granting Mr Miah's appeal, the Court of Appeal also rejected AXA's argument that Mr Miah's claim was an abuse of process and says that final resolution of the insurance policy's interpretation must await trial in the High Court at a date to be set.

Footnote: AXA is described as the 'defendant' as it issued the life policy and it is constantly referred to in the judgment, though the actual Respondent is the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited. AMP bought the AXA life insurance business in 2011.

Tags: AMP Life insurance

« Kiwi company attracts $200 million global investmentLifetime Group gets life business, sells general »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

No comments yet

Sign In to add your comment

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Insurance Briefs

Fitch runs Covid-19 ruler over industry
AIA has had its Fitch rating affirmed with a stable outlook, while Suncorp is affirmed with outlook revised to negative.

MDRT waives production requirements
MDRT has waived production requirements for its members this year.

Rating agency gives Partners the tick; Here's what it said
A M Best says Partners Life has a very strong balance sheet and has continued to award its current rating.

Hardship fund for Asteron customers
Suncorp is establishing a $2 million hardship fund for Vero and Asteron Life customers.

News Bites
Latest Comments
Subscribe Now

Cover Notes - Specific news aimed at risk advisers

Previous News

MORE NEWS»

Most Commented On
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com