Brought to you by:

QBE contests $45 million claim

The difference between extracting gold and extracting money from an insurer has become painfully clear to Tasmanian miner Beaconsfield Gold.

As the Tasmanian company prepares to pursue a claim against QBE in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, it says QBE is holding out on a $45.5 million claim because of “fine print”.

Following last year’s Anzac Day rockfall that killed a miner and brought about the mine’s short-term closure, Beaconsfield Gold and its joint venture partners made a claim under a business interruption policy with QBE.

However, the insurance giant has refused to make the payment, prompting Beaconsfield Gold to file a claim in the Supreme Court last week.

The detail on Beaconsfield Gold’s policy is unclear, but the company has a one-month excess and a cap of $50 million.

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, Beaconsfield Gold says QBE has refused to indemnify the joint venture participants for loss resulting from the mine closure.

QBE says it does not comment on individual claims, although its reticence could be linked to the mine’s occupational health and safety record. Unions have been critical of the mine’s approach to safety regulations, particularly certain extraction practices. Earlier this year, Tasmania’s Director of Public Prosecutions said no charges would be laid in relation to the rockfall.

Beaconsfield Gold has had some success in extracting insurance claims. The company and former mine partner Allstate Exploration gained a $6.7 million settlement from QBE in July 2005.

Beaconsfield Gold CEO Bill Colvin told Sunrise Exchange News QBE is refusing to meet to discuss a possible settlement before the case goes to court.

“I’ve always been a believer in negotiation, but there is no such negotiating happening at the moment,” he said.

Mr Colvin would not say why QBE has denied his claim. When asked about Beaconsfield Gold’s safety standards, he didn’t want to go into any detail.

“It’s a court action now, but essentially there is a clause that we consider provides us with indemnity and they say it doesn’t.”