One of the issues at the centre of the dispute was whether Icon's insurance policy with Liberty Mutual had expired at the time the damage occurred in December,less than five months after construction was completed.

"The essence of Icon’s argument ...[is that] commercially sensible parties in the position of Icon and Liberty would have expected that the Liberty policy covered Icon during the defects liability period."

Liberty argued its policy ended when construction of the Opal Tower was completed on August 10,and did not extend to a 12-month"defects liability period",during which Icon was required to remedy any building problems.

"The reason why Liberty may properly refuse to pay the purported claim is because Icon seeks
indemnity in respect of alleged property damage that did not occur within the period of insurance under the relevant policy,"court documents said.

Justice Lee found Icon only partly succeeded in its claim against Liberty,however,he said the parties’ common intention was for the policy to also cover the building after construction.

Another question was whether the built structure of the Opal Tower was considered a"product"under the terms of Icon's policy with QBE,which covered the period when the cracks occurred.

Justice Lee found that it was and that Icon succeeded in its claim against QBE.

The decision smooths the path for Icon to progress its claims for compensation from the insurers.

The parties are required to provide a further response to the court's decision within a week.

Owners last year launched a class action against the state-owned Sydney Olympic Park Authority - which owns the land where the tower was constructed - seeking millions of dollars in compensation.

The authority subsequently dragged Icon and developer Ecove into the legal dispute.