Insurance and transport law : controlling insurance contract terms : Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act – compliance, recovery and accountability

Commonwealth legislation covering insurance contracts contains numerous provisions designed to control the operation and effect of terms in life and general insurance contracts. For example, the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) contains provisions regulating the consequences attendant upon incorrect statements in proposals [1] and non-payment of premiums, [2] provides that an insurer may only exclude liability in the case of suicide if it has made express provision for such contingency in its policy, [3] and severely restricts the efficacy of conditions as to war risks. [4] The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) is even more intrusive and has a major impact upon contractual provisions in the general insurance field. It is beyond the scope of this note to explore all of these provisions in any detail but examples of controls and constraints imposed upon the operation and effect of contractual provisions include the following. A party is precluded from relying upon a provision in a contract of insurance if such reliance would amount to a failure to act with the utmost good faith. [5] Similarly, a policy provision which requires differences or disputes arising out of the insurance to be submitted to arbitration is void, [6] unless the insurance is a genuine cover for excess of loss over and above another specified insurance. [7] Similarly clause such as conciliation clauses, [8] average clauses, [9] and unusual terms [10] are given qualified operation. [11] However the provision in the Insurance Contracts Act that has the greatest impact upon, and application to, a wide range of insurance clauses and claims is s 54. This section has already generated a significant volume of case law and is the focus of this note. In particular this note examines two recent cases. The first, Johnson v Triple C Furniture and Electrical Pty Ltd [2012] 2 Qd R 337, (hereafter the Triple C case), is a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal; and the second, Matthew Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 115, (hereafter the Highway Hauliers case), is a decision of the Court of Appeal in Western Australia. This latter decision is on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The note considers too the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Prepaid Services Pty Ltd v Atradius Credit Insurance NV [2013] NSWCA 252 (hereafter the Prepaid Services case).These cases serve to highlight the complex nature of s 54 and its application, as well as the difficulty in achieving a balance between an insurer and an insured's reasonable expectations.

An Investigation into the Options for Increasing the Extent of Energy Efficiency Knowledge and Skills in Engineering Education

Society is increasingly calling for professionals across government, industry, business and civil society to be able to problem-solve issues related to climate change and sustainable development as part of their work. In particular there is an emerging realisation of the fundamental need to swiftly reduce the growing demand for energy across society, and to then meet the demand with low emissions options. A key ingredient to addressing such issues is equipping professionals with emerging knowledge and skills to address energy challenges in all aspects of their work. The Council of Australian Governments has recognised this need, signing the National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency in July 2009, which included a commitment to assist business and industry obtain the knowledge, skills and capacity to pursue cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities.2 Engineering will play a critical part among the professions, with Engineers Australia acknowledging that, ‘The need to make changes in the way energy is used and supplied throughout the world represents the greatest challenge to engineers in moving toward sustainability.’

Energy Efficiency Resources for Undergraduate Engineering Education: Final Report

This report presents the findings of an investigation of energy efficiency resources for undergraduate engineering education, undertaken by web-based research, conversations with educators, and a university survey. The investigation draws on the results of a number of previous investigations undertaken by the research team for NFEE related to energy efficiency education and presents the following findings and recommendations, as explained in greater detail in the body of the report. The findings suggest that even though certain EE concepts and principles have been identified by lecturers as being important there is little to no coverage of a number of these concepts in some programs/courses. Similarly, many topics relating to the most important EE workforce skills and significant shortages as identified in industry research, do not rate highly in terms of both perceived importance by lecturers, or coverage within existing courses. Overall, these findings suggest that despite growing awareness of the importance of EE in both industry and academia, the current depth and breadth of EE content in courses does not reflect this. It confirms that efforts in these areas can be better supported.

Project-based civil engineering courses

Problem solving is an essential element of civil engineering education. It has been observed that students are best able to understand civil engineering theory when there is a practical application of it. Teaching theory alone has led to lower levels of comprehension and motivation and a correspondingly higher rate of failure and “drop-out”. This paper analyses the effectiveness of introducing practical design projects at an early stage within a civil engineering undergraduate program at Queensland University of Technology. In two of the essential basic subjects, Engineering Mechanics and Steel Structures, model projects which simulate realistic engineering exercises were introduced. Students were required to work in small groups to analyse, design and build the lightest / most efficient model bridges made of specific materials such as spaghetti, drinking straw, paddle pop sticks and balsa wood and steel columns for a given design loading/target capacity. The paper traces the success of the teaching strategy at each stage from its introduction through to the final student and staff evaluation.

Can we get along better?

Queensland University of Technology, together with the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Alliancing Association of Australia, and the Australian Research Council, have recently commenced a 3 year research project which aims to explore the ways in which value for money can be optimised using collaborative contracting during delivery of Australian infrastructure projects.

The learning capability of construction organisations engaged in collaborative contracting - Literature Review [industry report]

Background Value for money (VfM) on collaborative construction projects is dependent on the learning capabilities of the organisations and people involved. Within the context of infrastructure delivery, there is little research about the impact of organisational learning capability on project value. The literature contains a multiplicity of often un-testable definitions about organisational learning abilities. This paper defines learning capability as a dynamic capability that participant organisations purposely develop to add value to collaborative projects. The paper reports on a literature review that proposes a framework that conceptualises learning capability to explore the topic. This work is the first phase of a large-scale national survey funded by the Alliancing Association of Australasia and the Australian Research Council. Methodology Desk-top review of leading journals in the areas of strategic management, strategic alliances and construction management, as well as recent government documents and industry guidelines, was undertaken to synthesise, conceptualise and operationalise the concept of learning capability. The study primarily draws on the theoretical perspectives of the resource-based view of the firm (e.g. Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984), absorptive capacity (e.g. Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Zahra and George 2002); and dynamic capabilities (e.g. Helfat et al. 2007; Teece et al. 1997; Winter 2003). Content analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify key learning routines. Content analysis is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences area. It provides rich data through the systematic and objective review of literature (Krippendorff 2004). NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to assist in this process. Findings and Future Research The review process resulted in a framework for the conceptualisation of learning capability that shows three phases of learning: (1) exploratory learning, (2) transformative learning and (3) exploitative learning. These phases combine both internal and external learning routines to influence project performance outcomes and thus VfM delivered under collaborative contracts. Sitting within these phases are eight categories of learning capability comprising knowledge articulation, identification, acquisition, dissemination, codification, internationalisation, transformation and application. The learning routines sitting within each category will be disaggregated in future research as the basis for measureable items in a large-scale survey study. The survey will examine the extent to which various learning routines influence project outcomes, as well as the relationships between them. This will involve identifying the routines that exist within organisations in the construction industry, their resourcing and rate of renewal, together with the extent of use and perceived value within the organisation. The target population is currently estimated to be around 1,000 professionals with experience in relational contracting in Australia. This future research will build on the learning capability framework to provide data that will assist construction organisations seeking to maximise VfM on construction projects.

Understanding Formal and Informal Governance on Infrastructure Projects - Literature Review [industry report]

In Australia, collaborative contracts have been increasingly used to govern infrastructure projects. These contracts combine formal and informal mechanisms to manage project delivery. Formal mechanisms (e.g. financial risk sharing) are specified in the contract, while informal mechanisms (e.g. integrated team) are not. The paper reports on a literature review to operationalise the concepts of formal and informal governance, as the literature contains a multiplicity of, often un-testable, definitions. This work is the first phase of a study that will examine the optimal balance of formal and informal governance structures. Desk-top review of leading journals in the areas of construction management and business management, as well as recent government documents and industry guidelines, was undertaken to to conceptualise and operatinalise formal and informal governance mechanisms. The study primarily draws on transaction-cost economics (e.g. Williamson 1979; 1991), relational contract theory (Feinman 2000; Macneil 2000) and social psychology theory (e.g. Gulati 1995). Content analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify key governance mechanisms. Content analysis is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences area. It provides rich data through the systematic and objective review of literature (Krippendorff 2004). NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to assist in this process. Formal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into four measurable categories: (1) target cost arrangement (2) financial risk and reward sharing regime (3) transparent financials and (4) collaborative multi-party agreement Informal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into three measurable categories: (1) leadership structure (2) integrated team (3) joint management system We expect these categories to effectively capture the key governance drivers of outcomes on infrastructure projects. These categories will be further refined and broken down into individual governance mechanisms for assessment through a large-scale Australian survey planned for late 2012. These individual mechanisms will feature in the questionnaire that QUT will deliver to AAA in October 2012.