When the claim is declined, or the regulator calls.

Most insurance disputes reduce to coverage: does the policy respond, how do the exclusions read, and was the disclosure obligation met when the policy was taken out. Each is a question of wording first — and the wording is read by a court differently from how a claims team reads it under deadline.

The ground rules are changing. As the Contracts of Insurance Act 2024 takes effect, the old broad duty of disclosure gives way — for consumer policies — to a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. Which regime governs a given policy depends on its timing: a moving landscape where current advice matters.

A declined claim is a legal position, not a verdict. We review declinature reasons against the policy wording and the disclosure history and advise honestly: some declines are right, many are arguable, and the arguable ones tend to move once the insurer's position is tested by counsel who knows the playbook.

A large part of the insurance practice is defence work run under a policy: statutory liability cover responding to a regulatory prosecution, professional indemnity cover responding to a claim against an adviser, and general liability claims. The client relationship in these files is a triangle — insured, insurer and counsel — and running it well means keeping all three aligned on strategy, reserve and the realistic outcome.

Statutory liability policies typically respond to fines-and-defence-costs exposure under regulatory statutes, which puts the coverage question and the defence question on the same file at the same time. Decisions taken for defence reasons can have coverage consequences, and the sequencing matters: what is admitted, when a plea is entered, and how an enforceable undertaking is framed all read back into the policy.

Professional indemnity work covers claims against professionals for advice or services said to have fallen short — including peer review of another firm's advice where an insurer needs an independent read before it decides its position. These files reward early, honest assessment: the claims that settle well are the ones where the weaknesses were identified before the other side found them.

The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 backs its duties with tiered offences — up to $3 million for a body corporate at the reckless-conduct end — and sentencing follows the structured approach set in Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018]: reparation first, a starting-point fine from the culpability bands, offender-specific adjustments, then an overall proportionality check. The framework makes exposure calculable, which is exactly what a duty-holder needs to choose between defending, pleading and the third path.

That third path is the enforceable undertaking under s123 — a binding, published programme of remediation, business improvement and industry benefit which, once WorkSafe accepts it, means the prosecution does not proceed. It is no soft option: a credible undertaking usually costs as much as the fine it displaces, and it is not available for the most serious reckless-conduct charges. What it avoids is the conviction, with everything a conviction carries for insurance, tendering and directorships.

The strategic call between those paths is made early or not at all — the options narrow as the file ages. We shape it from the investigation stage: what the file will actually prove, which culpability factors are contestable, and whether an undertaking WorkSafe would accept is one the business can genuinely deliver. Where the right answer is to fight, these are defended strict liability trials — the prosecution need not prove intent, so the defence is built on the reasonably practicable steps actually taken, and it is built from the evidence gathered in the first weeks.

Where an accident is fatal, the coronial jurisdiction usually follows the primary investigation. The coroner's task is to establish who died and how and why the death happened — and, where appropriate, to make recommendations aimed at preventing the same thing happening again. It is an inquiry, not a prosecution: no one is on trial, but reputations, insurance positions and future liability all sit in the room.

For a business or a family involved, the process is document-heavy and evidence-driven: briefs, expert reports, and the examination of witnesses before the coroner. Interested parties are entitled to be represented, and representation matters — the questions asked, and the findings and recommendations that result, are shaped by who is at the table.

This is long-standing chambers work, typically arriving after a WorkSafe, Maritime NZ, MPI or Police investigation — including in the motorsport context, where Brett has particular experience. The coronial file is run as part of the whole matter, consistent with the regulatory defence and any civil exposure, never at cross purposes with them.