SA Footy

MW wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:Psychologists were NOT consulted

Sack the absolutely incompetent Marshall Spurrier and Stevens NOW

F..k me what the f..k are you on about.
You do this on purpose to piss people off right

Armchair expert wrote:

MW wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:Psychologists were NOT consulted

Sack the absolutely incompetent Marshall Spurrier and Stevens NOW

F..k me what the f..k are you on about.
You do this on purpose to piss people off right

Leon Byner said it just then, they were not consulted regarding the draconian lockdown.

Eagles2014 wrote:My son's mate has settlement on house he brought today, picking up keys from agent to stay there tonight.

Should not even be able to pick up the keys! Supposed to live where you were on Thursday at 12.01am when lockdown started. If cops see a Ute full of stuff will pull over and get a $1000 fine. Know of someone last night who got that fine for driving to their parents house for tea.

If you cant have a Funeral today, you should not be able to move into a new house!!

Dutchy wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:6 days man. Not the end of the world. Have a BBQ and a few reds and chill out. It's all good. I'm with Marshall on this one. Haters gonna hate.

If you are PAYG employee no dramas, have to take some annual leave at worst, how about small business owners? Everyone going on about if we do this we will be able to have a traditional christmas, small business owners will be broke while others enjoy their turkey.

Bum Crack wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:6 days man. Not the end of the world. Have a BBQ and a few reds and chill out. It's all good. I'm with Marshall on this one. Haters gonna hate.

If you are PAYG employee no dramas, have to take some annual leave at worst, how about small business owners? Everyone going on about if we do this we will be able to have a traditional christmas, small business owners will be broke while others enjoy their turkey.

6 days better than 6 weeks ol mate. Short term pain for long term gain hopefully.

Bum Crack wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:6 days man. Not the end of the world. Have a BBQ and a few reds and chill out. It's all good. I'm with Marshall on this one. Haters gonna hate.

If you are PAYG employee no dramas, have to take some annual leave at worst, how about small business owners? Everyone going on about if we do this we will be able to have a traditional christmas, small business owners will be broke while others enjoy their turkey.

6 days better than 6 weeks ol mate. Short term pain for long term gain hopefully.

Armchair expert wrote:Psychologists were NOT consulted

Sack the absolutely incompetent Marshall Spurrier and Stevens NOW

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:6 days man. Not the end of the world. Have a BBQ and a few reds and chill out. It's all good. I'm with Marshall on this one. Haters gonna hate.

If you are PAYG employee no dramas, have to take some annual leave at worst, how about small business owners? Everyone going on about if we do this we will be able to have a traditional christmas, small business owners will be broke while others enjoy their turkey.

6 days better than 6 weeks ol mate. Short term pain for long term gain hopefully.

Gee, aren't you as happy as a pig in shit

Eagles2014 wrote:My son's mate has settlement on house he brought today, picking up keys from agent to stay there tonight.

Should not even be able to pick up the keys! Supposed to live where you were on Thursday at 12.01am when lockdown started. If cops see a Ute full of stuff will pull over and get a $1000 fine. Know of someone last night who got that fine for driving to their parents house for tea.

If you cant have a Funeral today, you should not be able to move into a new house!!

Insurers lose COVID-19 business interruption test case
James Fernyhough
AFR
Nov 18, 2020 – 6.06pm

Insurers are facing thousands of pandemic-related business interruption claims after the NSW Court of Appeal rejected the industry's argument that policies do not cover COVID-19 related losses.

The decision comes after insurers, including IAG, Suncorp and QBE, repeatedly expressed confidence that pandemic exclusions would stand, despite the fact many referred to an expired Act of Parliament.

The Insurance Council of Australia immediately said it would examine its options to appeal the decision in the High Court of Australia.

Suncorp, along with IAG and QBE, had incorrectly referred to the Quarantine Act in some of its business interruption policies.

Insurers have consistently refused to pay COVID-19-related business interruption claims on the basis that the policies explicitly exclude interruptions caused by "quarantinable diseases".

But many of these policies mistakenly referred to the Quarantine Act, which was repealed in 2015 and replaced with the Biosecurity Act. IAG, Suncorp and QBE were among the insurers to make the error.

The insurance industry claimed this was clearly an error, and the intention of the policy was obviously to exclude a pandemic under any future legislation. They argued the phrase "and subsequent amendments" referred to any future legislation.

But the judges disagreed, saying the policy only protected insurers under the Quarantine Act, and the phrase "and subsequent amendments" referred to amendments to that act.

They said the Biosecurity Act "did not provide for declarations of quarantinable diseases by the Governor-General", instead referring to a “listed human disease”. They said COVID-19 was never declared a quarantinable disease, and therefore was not excluded.

The decision referred to a specific case, involving insurer HDI and a business it had covered. However, similar wording in large numbers of policies means insurers – pending a potential High Court appeal – would not be able to stand behind the exclusion. The test case was brought by the Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

The provision means Suncorp now has $195 million reserved should it have to pay out COVID-19-related business interruption claims.

Following the release of the judgment on Wednesday afternoon, an Insurance Council of Australia spokesman said: "The ICA, in consultation with its members and legal representatives, will urgently review the determination and specifically the grounds on which it could seek special leave to appeal against the decision to the High Court of Australia."

John Berrill, an insurance lawyer with Berrill & Watson, said the ruling could bring out "tens of thousands" of claims. But he said it did not automatically mean claims would be successful.

"You've still got to prove you had a COVID-19 outbreak, you've got to prove you suffered loss, and that you suffered loss as a result of the outbreak. And that has not been dealt with here," he said.

He said insurers had used the exclusion as "a quick knock-out blow, and that strategy has not worked". Other areas in which insurers are likely to refuse claims include proximity of an outbreak, and access to the business.

He said he had around 15 clients with business interruption claims "at various stages of rejection", about half of which were covered by this issue.

Insurers have been coy about the cost of business interruption claims if the exclusions do not stand. However, on Monday Suncorp announced it was setting aside an additional $125 million to cover potential business interruption claims as a result of the recent Victoria lockdown. That brought its total provisions to $195 million.

Mr Berrill said the insurance industry had overstated the cost of paying business interruption claims, and that it would not be the "end of the world" to pay for them.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:What time is todays presser

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

woodublieve12 wrote:some pretty precious people out there... IT'S 6 DAYS!! Toughen up....

Jimmy_041 wrote:Very non-PC Father in Law just rocked up