ANZ Bank has lost legal action aiming to make a group of 26 insurers and Lloyd’s syndicates cover its costs from settling two class actions.

The bank’s liability for the settlements is not a loss under excess policies arranged with insurers including Zurich, XL, AIG, Axis, Liberty Mutual, Allianz, CGU and Chubb, the Federal Court says.

The Reilly class action – settled for $31.92 million – related to consumer credit insurance offered by ANZ, QBE and OnePath entities that were ANZ subsidiaries at the time. Group members argued the insurance was of no value.

In ruling against ANZ, Justice David Beach says the action related to premiums and interest charged, and the insurers can deny the claim based on a policy exclusion for fees, profits, commission and other charges.

He does not accept the bank’s argument that neither the premiums nor interest counted as fees, commissions or charges.

“If the insured has received amounts in payment of premiums, which it is legally liable to repay, including by way of damages, the insured does not suffer any net loss by the repayment. The insured is merely repaying an amount which it was not entitled to receive or retain.”

The insurers also pointed to an exclusion for any claim related to charging of excessive, undisclosed or improper profits, commissions, costs or charges.

Justice Beach finds ANZ could not claim its defence costs because of this exclusion.

Another lawsuit, the O’Brien class action in the Victorian Supreme Court, concerned “flex commission” car loans issued between 2011 and 2016 that gave ANZ-accredited motor dealers the flexibility to set the interest rate, and that paid a higher commission on a higher rate.

Customers were not told that dealers, and not the bank, set the interest rate, and the class action sought recovery of part of the interest paid to ANZ under the loans.

ANZ settled the action for $85 million in July 2025.

Justice Beach says this action involved “the actual or alleged charging of excessive, undisclosed or otherwise improper” charges, which fell under a policy exclusion.

Read the judgment here.