Australia: Directors unable to access D&O policy to pay defence costs

Last Updated: 20 November 2011
Article by Keith Bethlehem, Kemsley Brennan and James Stanton

In brief – Defence costs expressly covered under terms of D&O policy

In the case of Peter David Steigrad & Ors v BFSL 2007 Limited & Ors, a single judge in the New Zealand High Court1 declared that a Directors' & Officers' liability insurance policy could not be accessed by directors to cover defence costs, despite those costs being expressly covered under the terms of the policy.

Third party claimants have charge over all insurance money

Section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) was held to impose a charge in favour of the third party claimants over all insurance monies, thereby preventing the insured directors from enjoying cover for their own costs under the shared limit for directors' defence costs and liability.

It is significant that the judge expected the civil claims against the directors to exceed the combined limits. It is unclear whether the decision will be followed in Australia.

Bridgecorp collapse leads to prosecution of directors

The case of Steigrad v BFSL2 flows from the collapse of the Bridgecorp group of companies in the lead-up to the global financial crisis (GFC). The companies within the Bridgecorp group are either in receivership and/or liquidation.

As a consequence of the Bridgecorp collapse, the group was investigated and the group's five directors now face criminal prosecution by the New Zealand Securities Commission, as well as civil proceedings launched by creditors. In addition, the receivers and/or liquidators of Bridgecorp intend to pursue civil remedies against the directors.

D&O policy and statutory liability policy

Bridgecorp went into liquidation owing approximately $500 million to investor creditors. Bridgecorp at the time held two discrete insurance policies issued by QBE (International) Limited.

It held a directors' & officers' liability policy with a limit of indemnity of $20 million. Additionally, the directors had taken a statutory liability policy covering defence costs for breach of statutory obligations. The limit of that policy was $2 million. The policies together were for "any one claim and in the aggregate".

The directors opted to draw initially on the $2 million statutory liability policy. Divided between the five directors, the $2 million limit of indemnity was exhausted even before the hearing of these declaratory proceedings in late August 2011.

The directors proposed to rely on the D&O policy to fund their defence costs and sought a declaration that they were so entitled. QBE was a defendant in the proceedings.

In particular, the directors relied on the D&O policy wording which provided that QBE would pay the insured directors for "loss" flowing from a "wrongful act." The term "loss" in the D&O policy expressly included defence costs3.

However, the receivers notified QBE that they would be asserting a charge over the full limits under the D&O policy in anticipation of their claim against the directors, despite the wording of the D&O policy.

Third party claimants can have charge over all insurance money 

The receivers gave notice to QBE pursuant to section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1939 (NZ), which is relevantly substantially similar to section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW)4. Section 9(1) of the NZ Law Reform Act provides5:

9 Amount of liability to be charge on insurance money payable against that liability 

(1) If any person (hereinafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the insured) has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, entered into a contract of insurance by which he is indemnified against liability to pay any damages or compensation, the amount of his liability shall, on the happening of the event giving rise to the claim for damages or compensation, and notwithstanding that the amount of such liability may not then have been determined, be a charge on all insurance money that is or may become payable in respect of that liability... 

In effect, section 9(1) creates a charge over insurance monies in favour of third party claimants "on the happening of an event" which gives rise to the relevant claim. In this instance, his Honour held that the event was the collapse of Bridgecorp and the leaving of vast debts owing to creditors. It is not required that the claimants' cause of action is complete, it is only the happening of the event giving rise to the underlying claim.

Interpretation of Section 9 of the NZ Law Reform Act 

His Honour Lang J summarised existing New Zealand and Australian authority to note that the charge will "prevent an insured from receiving and disbursing the proceeds of an insurance claim for purposes other than satisfying the claim in respect of which the insurer made the payment"6. It will additionally prevent an insured from frustrating the third party claimant's ability to access monies payable under an insurance policy"7. That much is uncontroversial.

Were the directors entitled to indemnity for defence costs?

Having described the text and purpose of section 9, his Honour turned to the real question: whether the directors were entitled to indemnity for defence costs as provided in the D&O policy. His Honour assessed two New Zealand authorities8 and a High Court of Australia decision9 relating to the extent of the charge and remarked that those authorities were of "limited assistance"10.

That in itself is significant. His Honour is making new law. For example, the New South Wales case of Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Limited11 did not concern defence costs, but the issue of whether an insurer could unilaterally vary a policy.

His Honour looked to the nature of the charge and the purpose of section 9. Having accepted that a charge created by section 9 came into existence on the collapse of Bridgecorp, his Honour noted that:

  • section 9(1) causes the charge to to attach to "all insurance money"
  • there was no mechanism in the section to enable funds to be released to meet obligations other than the insured's "liability" as contemplated by the section
  • although the result may be harsh to the directors, it accords with the object and purpose of section 9
  • the charge, which "takes priority over all other forms of security given by the insured"12, could not allow an insured to "be in a better position than his or her secured creditors"13

Directors unable to access D&O policy to pay defence costs

Lang J held that the charge under section 9 prevented the directors from accessing the D&O policy to meet defence costs despite shared limits. Any payments for defence costs would either have to be met personally by the directors, or met voluntarily by the insurer.

In his concluding remarks, his Honour acknowledged that the decision "may seem unfair given the fact that the Bridgecorp companies took the policy out at least in part"14 to meet defence costs. However he accepted submissions by the receivers that the directors could have taken out a statutory liability policy which provided higher coverage for defence costs than the $2 million selected.

In closing, the court observed that it was "almost certain"15 that the parliament, in enacting the Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) would have viewed this outcome as being consistent with the spirit and intent of the section.

No consensus that the court's decision was correct

With respect, we query this assertion, given that the legislation was enacted decades ago, before the prevalence of "claims made and notified" policies such as the D&O policy in issue.

We are not alone in this view. While sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal in The Owners Strata Plan No 50530 v Walter Construction Group Limited16, his Honour Justice Giles made the following observations:

Some years ago I had occasion to suggest, writing extra-judicially, that s 6 is an unsatisfactory provision and should be reconsidered...Many others have expressed similar views... The attention of the legislature, preferably in a wide-ranging re-consideration and with regard to the availability of direct enforcement against an insurer under other legislation, is highly desirable.17

We consider that the NSW Parliament could urgently address the issue in consultation with insurers and directors in order to achieve certainty.

Decision has limited application to claims made and notified policies

We note that in Australia only NSW18, ACT19 and NT20 have legislative provisions comparable to the NZ Act. In the NSW Walter Construction Case, the court considered the application of section 6 of the NSW Act to "claims made and notified" policies.

Approving generally of the earlier authorities21 the court confirmed that section 6 did not apply to claims made and notified policies where the event was not covered in the particular policy period. Hodgson JA held that:

[i]t is true that the charge under s 6(1) is something created by statute, which does not have to conform to pre-existing general law categories; but it is difficult in the extreme to read s 6(1) as disclosing a legislative intention that there be something called a charge in existence at a time when there is no property to which it could attach, and no person against whom any rights could be asserted to have a charge attached to property if and when the property comes into existence... It is also true that the charge extends to "moneys that... may become payable"; but in the situation under discussion, there would not be in existence any circumstance giving rise to a possibility that moneys may become payable, apart from the possibility that the person against whom the cause of action has arisen might, in the future, make a contract with some as-yet unidentified insurer, which covers liability under that cause of action.22

The result is that the authority of the Walter Constructions Case will further limit the application of this decision in New South Wales to facts where the event giving rise to the claim occurs within the relevant policy period. That may be particularly significant as regards its application to many professional indemnity classes.23

No enforcement without legal proof 

It is also unclear to what extent the charge in fact "defeats" recovery under the D&O policy. Here, his Honour noted that the charge created by section 9 exists whether or not a case is in fact made out against the directors. However, the charge cannot be enforced until a third party claimant such as Bridgecorp can prove that the directors are liable to them and that the directors are entitled to cover under the D&O policy.

That is to say, the charge remains conditional and floating until it can be fixed to a particular sum. It maintains priority based on the time at which the claim arises. The decision deprives the insured from accessing the insurance monies if that will deplete the amount to which the third party claimant may be entitled.

Possibility of directors' access to D&O policy to pay defence costs

At the same time, the court noted in a somewhat contradictory paragraph that where liability to the third party claimant will be less than the full amount covered by the D&O policy, there may be some leeway to use the policy to pay out defence costs. Lang J noted:

In the present case the claim... is for a sum significantly greater than the amount of cover available under the D&O policy. As a result, QBE is now bound to keep the insurance fund intact for the benefit of the Bridgecorp defendants and any other civil claimants who might have priority over them by virtue of s 9(3). The position is likely to be different in circumstances where the amount of the claim is well within the amount of cover available under a policy. In those circumstances the charge could only extend to the likely amount of the claim and its associated costs. The insured may therefore be able to gain access to the policy to meet defence costs (emphasis added).24

It appears that the outcome of this paragraph is that with regard to defence costs recovery, the charge will only operate to prevent depletion of the "likely amount of the claim and its associated costs"25.

Do "associated costs" include defence costs?

With respect, the paragraph is somewhat internally inconsistent. The claim and its associated costs are, without explanation, circumscribed to the amount to which a third party claimant is entitled.

However, the "associated costs" may be interpreted to include defence costs, particularly in circumstances where a third party claimant is ordered to pay those in full or in part. It is not clear how a court will assess at this earlier stage whether a claim or the amount claimed are spurious.

Difference between NZ and NSW Acts

As noted above, the court relied on the wording of the section and the proposed parliamentary intention behind the enactment. The heading of section 9 in the Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) reads "Charges on insurance money payable as indemnity for liability to pay damages or compensation" (emphasis added)26.

In contrast, the heading enacted in the New South Wales equivalent Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) reads "Attachment of insurance moneys". The emphasised terms above were patently dropped from the NSW Act.

Arguably, a distinction exists between the NZ provision and the NSW provision which suggests that the term "liability" in the NSW act extends beyond the liability directly to the third party claimant. Instead, the liability arguably extends to the claim amount, interest amounts, the third party claimant's legal costs and the insured's own defence costs.

If it is correct to make that assertion, then the Bridgecorp Case may be distinguishable in New South Wales. The meaning of "liability" under both acts remains unclear.

Practical effect of the Bridgecorp decision 

It remains to be seen whether the High Court of New Zealand's interpretation will stand and whether Australian courts will follow the authority. Rumours abound that there are claimants preparing a test case in NSW.

However, for the time being, the decision serves as an important practical reminder for both insurers and insureds with a D&O policy of insurance to ensure that they can achieve certainty. The industry as a whole must adjust to this development, if confirmed, including by way of new products.

Implications for insurers 

Insurers will be aware that despite the wording of a D&O policy, the decision is presently authority in New Zealand that courts may require the full insured amount to be available to the third party claimant in the event of a successful claim. This will be limited to the "likely amount of the claim and its associated costs", though this term itself remains open to interpretation.

Insurers will want to ensure that amounts paid to directors as defence costs in such circumstances are not paid as volunteers and will erode the limits of liability.

Implications for insureds 

Insureds must be careful when choosing their level of indemnity and whether to elect for separate policies. It may be necessary to choose both a D&O policy to cover the "likely amount" of the claim and costs, while also maintaining, for example, a supplementary legal expenses policy and a statutory liability policy,27 or seek separate limits under a D&O policy to cover defence costs.

Insureds should be entitled to access D&O policies to pay defence costs

The issues raised in the decision are far from settled, though they currently pose an interesting benchmark in New Zealand law as to the High Court's interpretation of section 9 and the treatment of D&O policy wording. While the judge in New Zealand noted the principle that a third party claimant under the statutory charge has no greater rights than the insured would have, his Honour failed to explore this issue further.

The contract is clear. Insureds are entitled to share the limits to pay qualifying defence costs. This is well recognised in other jurisdictions including the United States, where the courts in California have held that where a policy clearly states that defence costs are payable within the limits of liability, they are to be eroded accordingly.

For example, in Helfand v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.27 an insured corporation sought coverage under its D&O policy for lawsuits alleging securities fraud which were filed against its directors and officers. Although cover was conceded, the insurer appealed a first instance decision that defence costs incurred by the insured did not deplete the policy's limit of liability. The Court of Appeal of California overruled the lower court's decision and held that:

[t]he plain terms of the policy make it clear that defense costs are payable against the limits of liability just like any other element of "loss" as defined in the policy. We arrive at this conclusion by examining the policy as a whole and the interplay between the defined concept of "loss" and various related provisions.28

We note that there is no similar statutory charge provision in California. For the time being in Australia, it will be necessary to monitor developments flowing from the Bridgecorp case.

For more information about directors' and officers' insurance cover, please see the website of CBP Lawyers or contact Keith Bethlehem at or Kemsley Brennan at or James Stanton at


1The High Court in New Zealand is the superior Court of first instance. It is equivalent to the State Supreme Courts in Australia. This is in contrast to the terminology used in Australia where the High Court in Canberra is the ultimate Appeal Court.

2Peter David Steigrad & Ors v BFSL 2007 Limited & Ors (HC Auckland, CIV-2011-404-611, 15 September 2011 per Lang J) (Bridgecorp Case). All case references are to the Bridgecorp Case unless otherwise specified.

3See clause 2.0 of the D&O policy as cited in the Bridgecorp Case at [16].

4Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) current version available online at:

5Law Reform Act 1939 (NZ) current version available online at:

6At [24].

7At [24], referring to McMillan v Mannix (1993) 31 NSWLR 538.

8National Insurance Company of New Zealand Limited v Wilson [1941] NZLR 639 (SC); Pattinson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Limited [1941] NZLR 1029.

9 Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Limited (1995) 183 CLR 399.

10At [53].

11Bailey at n9 above.

12At [59].


14At [61].

15At [63].

16(2007) 14 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-734; [2007] NSWCA 124 (Walter Construction Case).

17Walter Construction Case at [7] per Giles JA.

18See n4 above.

19 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), Part 15.3.

20Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Part VIII.

21Manettas v Underwriters at Lloyds (1993) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-180 (CBP acted for the insurer); Bailey at n9 above.

22Walter Construction Case at [31]-[32].

23For example, claims against architects and engineers by their very nature often arise out of historical events.

24At [56].


26See NZ Act, above n5.

27Defence costs type cover under statutory liability policies is limited. Most statutory liability policies will only indemnify for legal representation expenses where the insured is potentially subject to a fine or penalty.

28Id at 299.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Keith Bethlehem
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.