Mr O’Halloran met a woman at a dinner with friends. The woman accepted an invitation from him to go to his place after dinner “to watch television”. On the way to his car, Mr O’Halloran asked the woman if she would like to see the office where he worked, which was nearby. What happened next was described beautifully by the Court as follows:
Mr O’Halloran and the woman each went to the toilet in the premises and he then showed her around the work areas. They each smoked a cigarette in the office of the principal of the business. They then butted their cigarettes in a coffee mug. Mr O’Halloran tipped the cigarette butts into a waste paper bin in his office.
The couple left the premises which, within 15 minutes, were on fire. The owners of some of the other businesses in the office building sued Mr O’Halloran. Mr O’Halloran’s domestic insurer refused indemnity under the public liability section, on two grounds. The first was an exclusion in respect of claims arising out of the possession or use by Mr O’Halloran of any buildings other than the insured buildings. The second was an exclusion in respect of claims arising out of or in connection with any business, profession or occupation of Mr O’Halloran.
Not surprisingly, the Full Supreme Court of South Australia rejected both of those arguments.
The Court decided that the word “use” in the context of the first of the exclusions involved an element of control, and not just use of a transient nature.
In relation to the second exclusion, the Court decided the fact that Mr O’Halloran was in the building for a purpose completely unrelated to his occupation could not provide the necessary link between the claim and that occupation: RAA-GIO Insurance v O’Halloran.
FURTHER ENQUIRIES
