9.05.2018

Jarden v Lumley [2016] NZCA 193

Background

Mr and Mrs Jarden lived on a lifestyle property north of Rolleston.  Their house, built in 1998, suffered damage in the Canterbury earthquakes.

The Jardens had a residential insurance policy with Lumley, which required Lumley to cover any loss occurring “as the direct result” of the earthquakes.  However, this obligation did not commence until EQC paid (or agreed to pay) its statutory cap for each earthquake.  In broad terms, Lumley’s liability was to cover the difference between the actual cost of repair to the house and earthquake cover provided by EQC ($100,000 plus GST per earthquake).  This is also known as ‘top-up’ cover.

The Jardens lodged claims with EQC and Lumley for damage to their house for two earthquakes (4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011), and subsequently brought proceedings after the claims were not resolved.  Shortly before trial, the Jardens reached a settlement with EQC ($123,850 according to the Court of Appeal).  EQC’s payment was apportioned 90 per cent to the September 2010 earthquake, and 10 per cent to the February 2011 earthquake.  As a result, EQC only paid its statutory cap for the September 2010 earthquake.

The Jardens’ position was that Lumley’s liability under the policy was triggered as soon as the repair costs to their house exceeded the amount of the EQC settlement.  Lumley disagreed, and argued that it should not be automatically bound by the settlement that Jardens had agreed with EQC.

Decision

 The Court of Appeal accepted Lumley’s argument that a private insurer is not bound to accept an agreement reached between an owner and EQC regarding EQC’s statutory obligations.  Lumley was entitled to be satisfied that the amount paid (or agreed to be paid) by EQC equates with EQC’s obligations under s18 of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993.  Until the final repair costs to the Jardens’ house had been determined and the monetary effect of the apportionment of the repair costs between the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes had been quantified, Lumley’s liability to pay top-up cover could not be determined.

Those matters may be resolved by agreement between EQC and Lumley, but failing such agreement they will need to be determined by the High Court.

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

Updated Subcontract Agreement: SA-2017
The SA-2009 form of Subcontract Agreement is commonly used in the construction industry. It has undergone a review and a new SA-2017 form has been produced.
3.07.2018 Posted in Construction Law & Health & Safety Law
Distribution Agreements – 6 Key Considerations
While the exact nature and terms of a distribution agreement will vary between industries and jurisdictions, these 6 issues will always be important.
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Continued Importance of IP Protection for Manufacturers
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently released a report which identified key trends and challenges for the manufacturing sector (that report can be accessed here). Th...
28.06.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE – JUNE 2018
Recent Construction Law Decisions and Developments in New Zealand
18.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Updated Standard Consultancy Agreements
Two of the most commonly used standard agreements to engage consultants are the ACENZ / Engineering New Zealand (formerly IPENZ) Short Form Agreement (“SFA”) and the Conditions of Contract for Consultancy Services (“CCCS”).
5.06.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Managing Employees’ Mental Health Issues
Ministry of Health statistics confirm that during 2016, 169,454 people accessed mental health services in New Zealand. The law of averages suggests that most workplaces will – to a lesser or greater degree – be affected at some time by an employee’s mental health issue.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment Law & Health & Safety Law
Managing Medical Incapacity: Enough To Make You Feel Sick?
Managers and HR practitioners often tell us that dealing with employees who are genuinely too sick or injured to work is one of their least favourite tasks. Frankly, we can see why.
31.05.2018 Posted in Employment 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.