3.05.2018

Insurance Case Law Update December 2013

Introduction

As expected, the Canterbury earthquakes have resulted in a plethora of insurance litigation.  The Christchurch High Court has a dedicated earthquake list to deal with the volume of cases.

In this update, we provide a summary of key decisions issued over the past 12 months.  More detailed information on judgments having a wider impact on the insurance sector and the general law is linked to the case names highlighted in the summary table.

Summary Table

CaseIssuesDecision/Principle
Ridgecrest v IAG NZ (CA)Whether an insured is entitled to the aggregate value of multiple losses during the period of insuranceRidgecrest’s policy provided cover for repair / replacement under two alternative clauses – C1 and C2.  Ridgecrest’s claim had been made under C2, which did not entitle it to the aggregate value of damage caused by each earthquake (or happening).  Instead, Ridgecrest’s cover was limited to the cost of the uncompleted repairs actually carried out and the cost of replacing the building up to the limit of indemnity.

Had the claim been made under C1, the outcome might have been different given the wording of that alternative clause, but it was said to be too late for Ridgecrest to change this.

Ridgecrest has leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 Minister for CER v Fowler (CA)Lawfulness of 50% rateable value offer to owners of vacant land and uninsured improved properties in the red zone The red zone was lawfully created.
The Government’s decision to make 50% offers for vacant land and uninsured improved properties in the red zone was not lawfully made because it did not properly address the purposes of the CER Act, which is to enable people to recover from the earthquakes.
O’Loughlin v Tower (HC)

Skyward v Tower (HC)

Rout v Southern Response (HC)

Whether the red zone creates an insurable lossNovel repair methods

Rebuild costs

The creation of the red zone did not give rise to a claim under the insured’s home policy.The insurer was prevented from paying a (lower) sum for notional repair costs based on a technique that was risky.

If the insurer paid the notional rebuild costs instead, this should be based on the (lower) cost of rebuilding at a good site, since the insured had no intention of rebuilding on the existing damaged/vulnerable site.

A house is only economic to repair if the actual repair costs are less than 80% of a full rebuild estimate (Rout).

Zurich v BC 398983 (CA)Whether sum insured was inclusive or exclusive of EQC coverA clause which provided that “Insurer’s liability will be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the Natural Disaster Damage cover” was interpreted in the particular commercial context as meaning the sum insured was inclusive of EQC cover.
University of Canterbury v Insurance Council & Ors (CA)Whether local authorities can require owners to increase the seismic strength of buildings above 34% NBSA territorial authority cannot require a building to be strengthened to a seismic capacity of more than 34% NBS
IAG NZ v Jackson (CA)Whether “in connection with” requires a direct causal connection

Dishonesty exclusion

The phrase “in connection with” requires some causal or consequential relationship, but it does not need to be a direct or proximate cause.

Here, insurers could rely on an exclusion in the insured broker’s professional indemnity policy which excluded cover for civil liability in connection with a dishonest act.  The broker’s apparent dishonesty about whether his client’s insurance had been arranged came after his initial inadvertent failure to place the cover in the first place.  The broker’s client sued after suffering uninsured earthquake damage.

Wild South v QBE (HC) Automatic reinstatementThe particular policies included automatic reinstatement clauses.  Cover reinstated automatically if no notice was given within a reasonable period following the first earthquake.  What is reasonable will depend on the knowledge and conduct of the parties after each event, but will not normally extend to the date of payment of the first claim.
Avonside Holdings Ltd v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2013] NZHC 1433 Assessment of nominal costs of rebuildBuilders’ margin to reflect amount charged by a reasonable contractor, not special rates available under preferred agreement arrangements.  Allowances for professional fees should reflect fees necessary for a rebuild of the damaged property, rather than a new build.  The assessment can be discounted to take account of reusable parts.  No allowance should be made for contingencies.
TJK (NZ) Ltd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd [2013] NZHC 298Obligation to pay indemnity value prior to reinstatementNo rule of law that indemnity value is immediately payable when an insured elects reinstatement.  On the terms of the policy at issue, the insured was entitled from the date of damage to an indemnity for its loss.  The difference between the indemnity value and reinstatement cost became payable when the insured incurred those costs.
Morley v Earthquake Commission [2013] NZHC 230Whether boarding houses are entitled to cover from EQCA boarding house is a dwelling insured under s 18 of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993.
McLean v IAG NZ [2013] NZHC 1105Whether rebuild costs include professional feesThe “reasonable cost to repair or replace” a house included professional fees.

For further information about these cases, or to discuss any aspect of insurance law, please contact:

Christina Bryantchristina.bryant@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8789

Nick Gilliesnick.gillies@heskethhenry.co.nz or +64 9 375 8767

or other members of the Hesketh Henry Insurance Law team.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
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

Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
UK Supreme Court Delivers Decision on Uber Driver Employment Status
The distinction between employee and independent contractor can be complex, particularly where the nature of the business model blurs the lines of standard employment practices.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Holidays Act Overhaul – Taskforce Recommendations
There have been calls for an amendment of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act) for some time.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Unwanted Land Covenants and Easements: Seeking a Court Order
The Supreme Court recently considered an application by Synlait Milk to modify a land covenant restricting the burdened land use to farming, grazing and forestry operation to protect the ability of the benefited land owner to develop a quarry.  This article looks at the circumstances in which the courts might give relief to parties in an application to extinguish or modify a covenant or easement.
15.03.2021 Posted in Property Law
New ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 come into force
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules for 2021 (2021 Rules) have now come into force and apply to all ICC arbitrations begun after 1 January 2021.  While the new Rules...
10.03.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->