12.08.2020

Losses caused by 2011 earthquakes not a “series of losses”

Moore v IAG New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 319

Appeal allowed

The homeowever has prevailed in the Court of Appeal, with the Court finding an aggregation clause does not operate to limit IAG’s liability for losses arising from the February 2011 and June 2011 earthquakes to the sum insured of $2.5 million plus GST.

Mr Moore’s house had not been damaged in the September 2010 earthquake, but it was severely damaged by the later earthquakes.  The reinstatement costs were estimated to be approximately $2.08 million for the damage caused by the February earthquake and $2.77 million for the damaged caused by the June earthquake. 

Aggregation clause

The policy wording contained a clause which read:

The most that we pay for any loss (or any series of losses caused by one event) is the sum insured shown in the schedule.

The words in bold were defined terms and “one event” was defined in the policy as “a single event or a series of events which have the same cause”.

High Court decision

In the High Court Dunningham J had found in favour of IAG and reasoned that the losses caused by February and June 2011 earthquakes were a “series of losses” caused by “a series of events” which had the same cause, being the September 2010 earthquake.

Court of Appeal’s reasoning

The Court of Appeal disagreed, observing that the interpretation adopted by Dunningham J did not give any effect to the words “series of”.  The Court concluded that two separate and distinct occurrences of sudden accidental physical damage occurring four months apart could not properly be regarded as a series of such losses in terms of the aggregation clause.

The Court found that both the series of losses and series of events causing those losses must occur in a proximate temporal sequence before they can be grouped for the purposes of applying the policy limit.  They must also have a common cause which is the proximate cause of any given loss.  The test of proximate cause is same test as tort law.  It is a question of fact to be determined in accordance with common sense principles. 

The Court determined that the February 2011 and June 2011 earthquakes were caused by separate events and did not form a series of losses.  Accordingly, IAG was liable to pay up to the sum insured for the damage caused by each earthquake. 

It was therefore unnecessary for the Court to consider whether the February and June earthquakes had the same cause, namely the September 2010 earthquake.  However the Court determined this issue for completeness.  Based on the expert evidence, the Court held that the proximate cause was not the September 2010 earthquake, which had involved spatially distinct faults.  Further, the accumulation of stresses over thousands of years resulting from the relative movement of the Pacific and Australian plates – which provided a broad sense in which the three earthquakes could be considered as part of a series of events with the same cause – did not meet the proximate cause test posited by the aggregation clause.

Our comment

The Court of Appeal’s decision is yet another important judgment which the Canterbury earthquake sequence has produced.  It demonstrates the critical importance of correctly approaching the issue of policy interpretation and then applying the relevant facts – which in this case required sound analysis of scientific evidence – to the particular policy wording. 

It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal reached a different view on the effect of the September 2010 earthquake on the February and June earthquakes.  The expert evidence from the parties’ seismological experts had been taken as read in the High Court.  Whereas Dunningham J had reached the view that the September 2010 earthquake was the proximate cause of the subsequent earthquakes, the Court of Appeal agreed with the evidence of the homeowner’s expert that this view ignored more proximate causes.  In particular, the loadings on the faults involved with the February and June earthquakes which already existed before the September 2010 earthquake caused additional loading on those faults.

Our insurance and construction teams are quick to understand technical matters.  If you have any questions about the issues raised by this judgment or an insurance issue, please get in touch with our Insurance team , or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

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

Alert Level 3; Hi-ho, hi-ho, back to work we go?
In Auckland, we’re excited to be moving to Alert Level 3, if only so we can take a break from cooking every single meal! 
21.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
M&A Pricing Mechanics: Completion Accounts vs Locked Box
A critical period in the timeline of any M&A share transaction is the period between signing the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement and completion.
Climate Change and the Construction Industry: Counting down to a national strategy
The Government is getting closer to the publication of a national strategy for responding to climate change.
21.09.2021 Posted in Climate Change & Construction
Formation of Contract: Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd
The English High Court decision in Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 287 highlights the importance of parties to commodities contracts expressly including an arbitration clause in the contract. This is particularly when the contract is formed by email or instant messaging negotiations.
20.09.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
August 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
20.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
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.
-->