9.05.2018

LWR Durham Properties Ltd (in rec) v Vero Insurance NZ Ltd & Ors [2016] NZHC 826

The High Court declined to order the discovery of insurer’s reserving information.  The decision considers the proper purpose of discovery in relation to insurance claims and the role of reserves.

Background

The plaintiff, LWR Durham Properties Ltd, brought proceedings against its insurers over damage to its buildings suffered in the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes.

In a case management Minute the Court directed tailored discovery of six categories of documents (which did not include a seventh category, being “all reserves set by insurers”, proposed by the plaintiff at the time).  The plaintiffs subsequently applied for an order that its insurers disclose their reserves.

Reserving

An insurance reserve is the amount of money an insurer expects to pay for an individual claim.  Insurers set reserves in order to forecast the total amount to be set aside for meeting current claims.  Reserves are usually revisited during the life of a claim as further information becomes available.

Relying on Prattley Enterprises Ltd v Vero Insurance Ltd [2015] NZHC 1444, the plaintiff argued the reserves were disclosable because they evidenced the insurer’s view of liability and went to the credibility of its witnesses.

The defendants maintained the reserves were not relevant to any issues in the proceeding, and that it would be improper to discover these for the mere reason of seeking to impugn a witness’ credibility.

Decision

Matthews AJ held the reserves were not discoverable as they were “a relatively unsophisticated or inexact estimate of the possible financial consequences of claims as they are made, and as [the insurer] update[s] it”.  It might have some “scant value” as cross-examination material, but that was not a sufficient or proper basis for ordering its discovery.

Matthews AJ entertained the possibility the reserves could be relevant to the insurer’s belief the plaintiff’s claims for reinstatement were brought too late.  His Honour suggested they might show an assessment of possible liability that may be relevant to the question of prejudice from not having had an opportunity to assess damage after each earthquake.   However, this was dismissed on the basis that it was not subject to detailed argument.

Prattley was distinguished.  It concerned the re-opening of a settlement agreement, meaning the insurer’s knowledge at the time of the agreement was in issue.  Discovery of the insurer’s reserves was therefore relevant for reasons specific to that case, which did not apply here.

What is perhaps surprising about this decision is the apparent willingness of the Court to even consider what a party might think it may have to pay or be held liable for is discoverable (other than in limited circumstances, such as Prattley).  Reserving is a long established balance sheet exercise by insurers, which should not normally be disclosable.

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

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When Actual Delay Losses Exceed Liquidated Damages
14.11.2018 Posted in Construction Law
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 Posted in Employment Law
WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd: The Competent Contractor?
Defining health and safety duties in a contracting situation is rarely straightforward.
1.11.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Managing Partner Honoured with German Award
Erich Bachmann, the Managing Partner of Auckland based commercial law firm Hesketh Henry, has been awarded the Cross of the Order of Merit with Ribbon of the Federal Republic of Germany (Verdienstkreu...
30.10.2018
Building and Construction Law Journal
Construction partner, Nick Gillies, has been published in the latest Building and Construction Law Journal ((2018) 34 BCL 179).
18.10.2018 Posted in Construction Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION: RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Introduction Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018.  Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, wi...
Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 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.