28.04.2014

Crystal Imports Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London [2013] NZHC 3513

Like Ridgecrest, Marriott and Wild South,[1] this claim concerns damage sustained by an insured property in successive earthquake events.  The question arising in all of these claims is whether the insured can claim the cost of remedying damage caused by each earthquake.  Crystal Imports is of particular interest due to Cooper J’s decision that the doctrine of merger applied to the material damage policy at issue in that proceeding.

Crystal Imports owned five properties in Christchurch damaged in the 4 September 2010 earthquake and the 22 February 2011 earthquake.  The insurer had paid $70,000 towards investigation and repair when the February earthquake struck, but the majority of the repairs had not been done.  Three of the five properties were subsequently demolished.

The insurance policy included a provision for the automatic reinstatement of cover following an event of loss, unless either party gave written notice to the contrary.  Notice was not given in the period between the two earthquakes.

The Court held that the insured’s right to be indemnified by the insurer arose when physical damage to the property occurred during each earthquake.  Cover was reinstated at the same time.   Subsequent notice to the contrary would mean that the reinstatement of cover was not effective, but notice had to be given before a further loss-causing event took place.

The insured was accordingly entitled to have the property reinstated after each earthquake up to the maximum limit of cover.  However, the Court held that the doctrine of merger means that a partial loss which is not repaired merges into a subsequent total loss.  As a result, the insured was only entitled to claim for the total loss in the February event, although the insurer remained liable for the cost of investigations and repairs which had already been incurred.

The doctrine of merger has only previously been applied in marine insurance cases, where the obligation to pay for unrepaired damage to a vessel does not arise until the repairs are undertaken.  Cooper J disagreed with the High Court judgment in Ridgecrest, where Dobson J took the view that merger does not apply to wider categories of material damage insurance.  The Court of Appeal in Ridgecrest did not express a view, but the issue was the subject of extensive argument before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court’s judgment, which has yet to be delivered, may clarify the issue of whether merger applies to event-based policies, where liability arises when the damage is incurred.

Crystal Imports also reviewed the meaning and effect of an Average provision in the policy.  Average clauses address under-insurance, by reducing the amount payable under the policy for loss in proportion to the difference between the sum insured and the true value of the property.  The dispute in Crystal Imports concerned the basis on which the true value should be calculated; the insured asserted the value was the depreciated replacement cost at the time of the February earthquake ($4,580,000), the insurer said it was the full replacement cost on the same date ($9,569,320).  The former measure would limit recovery to 67% of the loss, the latter to 32% of the loss.

The judge held that the appropriate measure depended on whether Crystal Imports elected to reinstate the property.  The policy included a reinstatement memorandum (“new for old” cover), which did not apply if the insurer chose not to reinstate.  The policy did not specify the method by which the indemnity would be calculated in that event.  The Court held that “generally applicable principles” meant that the indemnity would be based on the depreciated replacement cost of the property or the market value loss.  If Crystal Imports elected not to reinstate, the true value of the property for applying Average was the depreciated replacement cost.

Back to Summary Table

[1] Ridgecrest New Zealand Ltd v IAG New Zealand [2013] NZCA 291, [2013] 3 NZLR 618 (CA), Marriott v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZHC 3120, Wild South Holdings Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [2013] NZHC 2781

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.