9.05.2018

Insurance Case Law Update April 2014

In this update, we summarise insurance decisions issued at the close of 2013 and in first quarter of 2014.  Litigation arising from the Canterbury earthquakes continues to dominate the insurance landscape, with the Supreme Court granting leave for the appeal of many of the judgments discussed in our December report.

There have now been several decisions dealing with question of whether an insured can claim for damage sustained in successive earthquakes.  This is a vexed issue in claims where the building is underinsured or has ultimately been destroyed.  There are conflicting High Court decisions on whether damage suffered in an earlier event merges in the final destruction of the building.  The scope of the doctrine of merger was debated before the Supreme Court on 10 March 2014 at the hearing of Ridgecrest New Zealand Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd.  The Court’s judgment on the issue is awaited.

Detailed information on judgments having a wider impact on the insurance sector is linked to the case names highlighted in the summary table.  For further information on any of the issues raised in this update, please contact Brett Morley (+ 64 9 375 8745) or Christina Bryant (+ 64 9 375 8789).

Summary Table

 

CaseIssuesDecision / Principle
BFSL 2007 Ltd v Steigrad (SC)Application of s9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 to costs-inclusive policiesThe statutory charge under s 9(1) attaches to insurance proceeds that could be paid out under a liability policy.  The insurer is at risk if it pays out defence costs under a costs-inclusive policy and the maximum level of cover is not sufficient to satisfy both the obligation to pay defence costs and the obligation to indemnify the insured if liability is established in the underlying claim.
Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd (CA)Interpretation of Tower’s Provider House Policy The insured, not the insurer, has the right to elect to reinstate the property and to choose between options for reinstatement.  If the insured elects to purchase a replacement property, he or she is not obliged to purchase a property which is comparable with the original property when new.
Mr V  v Sovereign Assurance Co Ltd (HC)How insurers should approach an assessment of entitlement to a benefitSovereign made an assessment that an insured was not eligible for a benefit under an income protection policy.  The judgment lists the principles the insurer must apply when exercising a contractual power to determine “to its satisfaction” whether a benefit should be paid.
Marriott v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd (HC)Entitlement to recover damage caused by successive earthquakes
Automatic reinstatement of cover
When a property is destroyed
There was an automatic reinstatement of cover after each successive earthquake.  Notice to prevent the automatic reinstatement had to be given before a further loss-causing event took place, but there was no implied term requiring notice to be given within a “reasonable period”.  Under the terms of the policy, the insurer could elect to pay the depreciated replacement cost of the buildings and had no obligation to pay for repairs unless and until those costs were incurred.   “Destroyed” did not mean uneconomic to repair (a constructive total loss).
Crystal Imports Ltd v Lloyds (HC)Entitlement to recover damage caused by successive earthquakes
Automatic reinstatement of cover
Application of the doctrine of merger
There was an automatic reinstatement of cover after each successive earthquake.  Notice to prevent the automatic reinstatement had to be given before a further loss-causing event took place.  The Court applied the doctrine of merger, with the result that the insured was only entitled to claim for the destruction of the building.
Sydenham Recycling Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZHC 3518Scope of an additional increased cost of working provision under a business interruption policyThe purpose of the additional increased cost of working provision was to insure SRL for business interruption during the one year indemnity period.  A claim for moving and re-housing the business would fall within the scope and purpose of the policy if there was a pressing need to relocate.  However, the existing premises were safe to occupy due to temporary repairs undertaken by the insurer and SRL had successfully operated its business from those premises throughout the indemnity period.
Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd v Weathertight Homes Tribunal [2014] NZHC 342Scope and exercise of the WHT’s jurisdiction to remove a party from proceedingsSuccessful application for judicial review of tribunal member’s decision not to remove Vero as a party.  WHT had jurisdiction to determine at an interlocutory stage which insurance policy applied and to construe an exclusion provision in that policy in circumstances where there was no genuine factual dispute.  Section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 does not apply to exclusion clauses specifying the kind of loss or quantum of loss to which cover does not apply.
Angus v Ace Insurance Ltd [2014] NZHC 258Whether a fire was deliberately lit by the insuredThe balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in civil cases of suspected arson.  The judge noted that the appearance of witnesses is of limited value in determining truth.  Where possible, conclusions should be reasoned on the basis of contemporary materials, objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events.

Progress of Appeals

 

CaseIssuesDecision / Principle
Ridgecrest New Zealand Ltd  v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZSC 108Whether an insured is entitled to be paid for damage caused by successive earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insuredThe hearing of the appeal to the Supreme Court took place on 10 March 2014.  Judgment has been reserved.  A summary of the Court of Appeal decision is included in our December update.
Jackson v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 12Whether “in connection with” requires a direct causal connection
Dishonesty exclusion
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court declined.  The Supreme Court confirmed the test for dishonesty is a mixed objective-subjective test: a person’s subjective knowledge is measured against “normally acceptable standards.  A summary of the Court of Appeal decision is included in our December update.
University of Canterbury v Insurance Council of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZSC 13Whether local authorities can require owners to increase the seismic strength of buildings above 33% NBSLeave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted.  A summary of the Court of Appeal decision is included in our December update.
Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd t/a Zurich New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 19Whether sum insured was inclusive or exclusive of EQC coverLeave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted.  A summary of the Court of Appeal decision is included in our December update.
Fowler Developments Ltd v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake RecoveryLawfulness of 50% rateable offer to owners of vacant land and uninsured improved properties in the red zoneFowler Developments Ltd and the Quake Outcasts have applied for leave to appeal; the Supreme Court’s decision on the application for leave has yet to be delivered.  A summary of the Court of Appeal decision is included in our December update.
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

Getting the Deal Through: Construction 2019
Partners Nick Gillies, Helen Macfarlane and Christina Bryant are the contributing authors of the New Zealand Chapter of the 2019 edition of “Getting the Deal Through Construction”. Getting...
19.09.2018 Posted in Construction Law
UAE COMPANIES LAW UPDATE
New Zealand businesses looking to establish a foothold in the UAE have many options
10.09.2018 Posted in Trade and Commodities
When You Can’t Have it Your Way
Antares Restaurant Group Limited (which owns and operates Burger King in New Zealand) has received a whopper of a sanction – a ban on the company supporting visa applications until July next year.
4.09.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019
The Marine team at Hesketh Henry have again contributed to Getting the Deal Through: Shipping 2019.
30.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
A Guide to Concurrent Delay
Hesketh Henry was pleased to host the New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors on 14 August 2018, where one of our construction partners, Nick Gillies, presented on concurrent delay.  The same pre...
22.08.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Update – New Zealand’s New Biofouling Standards
New Zealand has introduced a new standard requiring all vessels to have a “clean hull” on arrival in the country after 15  May 2018.[1]  The objective is to minimise the introduction of ...
21.08.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
No Longer Stumped: The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Sentencing Guidelines
The High Court at Auckland has released its first and much-awaited decision under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
21.08.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
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.