The Opel Tower Builder icon demands success at m 42 million more than the costs

“In our view, this case revolves around what is defined in the policy terms of the icon and the perceived purpose of the policy,” he said.

“Our policy was to not respond to Icon’s claim, however the court ruled that the provision of protection should be adjusted. Liberty is currently considering whether to appeal against this decision.”

QBE did not respond to a request for comment.

The controversy arose as part of the insurance period involved, with insurers refusing to pay compensation for the icon.

“Liberty has stated that under its policy it will extend the date of ‘practical completion’ of projects undertaken during the insurance period and does not provide coverage for subsequent deficiencies over the warranty period,” Clyde & Co-partner Lucinda Lyons said.

“QBE, on the other hand, argued that Opel did not meet the icon’s definition of ‘product’ to induce compensation under the Tower Development Insurance category.”

However, in his judgment, Judge Michael Lee, along with Icon, upheld the Liberty policy for incidents and damages that occurred during the 12-month deficiencies warranty period. Judge Lee also rejected QBE’s argument that a ‘product’ does not have to be firm and movable to be included in policy.

Separately, Icon put a company in management last week, with Icon Construction Australia (NSW) P.T. Ltd. completed its last project in 2017 and is no longer operational. It recorded $ 1.2 million in debt, executive Ben Verny said.

Check Also

Two Internet monitoring companies added…

Two cyber-surveillance and private data-gathering companies, Sytrax and Intelaxa, have been added to a list …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *