Judge referred to authorities that established wilful misconduct "implies either a deliberate act intended to cause the harm, or such blind and uncaring conduct that one could say that the person was heedless of the consequences". The trial Judge had little difficulty in concluding this test had been met and the insurance coverage void. An appeal by the defendants was dismissed (2012 FCA 199). The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Judge on the issue of liability finding, among other things, that the defendants ought to have used up to date charts which disclosed the existence of the cable. A liability issue raised on appeal that does not appear to have been raised at trial was whether the individual defendant could be jointly and severally liable with the corporate defendant. The individual defendant argued that he should not be liable as his acts were those of the corporation. However, the court of appeal said that employees, officers and directors will be held personally liable for tortious conduct causing property damage even when their actions are pursuant to their duties to the corporation. Concerning the limitation issue, the court of appeal also agreed with the trial Judge finding that the defendants intended to physically damage the cable and that it did not matter whether the defendants were aware of the actual loss that would result. Finally, on the insurance issue, the court of appeal was not persuaded the trial Judge had made an error in concluding that the conduct of