This case involved a claim by the plaintiff house owners against the first defendant Daniel Kondra and the second defendant Zurich Australian Insurance Limited for damage to the plaintiffs’ house during a severe storm in November 2008. The house had been built for the plaintiffs in 2003-04 by the first defendant, a registered builder. During the storm, the aluminium-framed window units in the house suffered “lateral deflection” i.e. they were literally pushed in by the wind. It was beyond doubt that the window units had not been properly installed, either by the supplier of the units or by the first defendant. Daubney J found the first defendant negligent for failing to adequately supervise the construction of the house because due supervision would, or ought, have revealed the patent inadequacy of the installation of the windows. Daubney J also found that under its insurance policy, the second defendant was liable to indemnify the first defendant in respect of the damage. His Honour found that the house was not a “product” of the first defendant within the meaning of the policy and that the “occurrence” for the policy was not the storm or the defective installation, but an “over-pressurisation event”, distinguishing GIO General Ltd v Newcastle City Council (1996) 38 NSWLR 558. Hemmant’s List’s Simon Couper QC appeared for the plaintiff. See the decision here: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QSC17-037.pdf
