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

Don’t Let Your Guard Down
The risks arising from the use of unguarded machinery are well-known to the point of being blindingly obvious.  The measures to ensure the safe operation of machinery are usually straightforward.  W...
19.02.2019 Posted in Health & Safety Law
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REFORM: Ten Guidelines the Government could Adopt
“We need to lead by example and if there are things that we can do to take a leadership position with that industry then we should be.” Prime Minister Ardern[1] As 2018 draws to a close a...
21.12.2018 Posted in Construction Law
Nearly there! Only a few days of 2018 left!
Just a quick note from the Hesketh Henry Employment team about what’s on the horizon:
18.12.2018 Posted in Employment Law
When did you last have your Ts & Cs reviewed?
The Commerce Commission recently announced that, after its investigation of jeweller Michael Hill Limited, the company was fined $169K for breaching its obligations in relation to the extended warrant...
13.12.2018 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Time for Change (again!)
The winds of change are once again blowing through the employment law landscape.
10.12.2018 Posted in Employment Law
Summer Maritime Update
Welcome to our summer maritime update - November 2018
27.11.2018 Posted in Maritime Law
Employment Litigation Costs: In for a penny, in for a pound?
Vindication is frequently offered as a motivation for litigation.
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.