Lawcover Insurance has been ordered to pay $510,000 after a solicitor failed to flag that a couple's wills would not work as intended.
The NSW District Court handed down the decision on March 20, 2026, in Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68.
The dispute traced back to 2016, when Jeffrey Lofts and his de facto partner, Regina Miller, asked their solicitors at Atkinson Vinden Lawyers to update their wills. The couple owned a waterside property in Forster, NSW, as joint tenants. Both wills set out a detailed arrangement: the survivor could keep living in the home, and when they eventually died or remarried, each person's share would go to their own children from earlier relationships.
There was one problem. Under a joint tenancy, when one owner dies, the property passes automatically to the survivor - no matter what the will says. The solicitors never explained this. They also never mentioned that the joint tenancy could be severed through a simple, low-cost process that would have made the wills effective.
Jeffrey Lofts died in January 2023. His son, Alexander Lofts - who had been told by his father he would succeed to a half-interest in the property - found out in 2024 that he would not acquire any interest in it at all.
By that point, the law firm had gone into liquidation. Alexander Lofts brought his claim in 2024 directly against Lawcover, the firm's professional indemnity insurer, under the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017.
Judge Andronos SC DCJ found the solicitors owed a duty of care to the son as an intended beneficiary and breached it by failing to advise on the need to sever the joint tenancy. The court accepted that, had the couple been properly advised, they would have taken the straightforward steps needed to make their wills work.
Lawcover pushed for damages to be cut by up to 80%, arguing it was not proven that Mr Lofts would have gone ahead with the severance. The court was not persuaded. It found the loss was not a matter of chance but the deprivation of an identified benefit - and that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lofts would have given instructions for the joint tenancy to be severed.
The $510,000 figure was built from expert evidence. Valuers put the property's worth at around $1.5 million at the time of death. Actuarial evidence valued the son's remainder interest at 34% of that figure, after factoring in Ms Miller's right to live in the property and the discount for a benefit that would only vest in the future. No pre-judgment interest was awarded.
The type of error at the centre of this case - a solicitor failing to address the clash between joint tenancy and what the will is trying to achieve - has surfaced in several earlier Australian and UK decisions cited in the judgment. For professional indemnity insurers, the outcome is a pointed reminder that even a basic advisory gap in estate planning can generate a six-figure claim.
Costs remain to be determined. The parties were directed to file submissions on costs by 2 April 2026 if no agreement is reached.
