9.05.2018

Prattley Enterprises Ltd v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZHC 1444

This is one of a series of cases dealing with the issue of incremental damage in successive earthquake events, which includes Ridgecrest[1] and Wild South[2].  It has however an important twist: the plaintiff had already settled its insurance claim based on the market value of the building.  The plaintiff alleged it had misunderstood its rights under the policy, and sought to the have the settlement set aside.

The plaintiff’s claim, based on the Supreme Court decision in Ridgecrest, was that it was entitled under its policy to claim reinstatement for damage caused in each earthquake, plus the depreciated replacement cost of the building following its destruction in the final earthquake.

Dunningham J disagreed.  While the plaintiff had an event-based policy, it was an indemnity policy with a different measure of loss to the full replacement policy at issue in Ridgecrest.  Under the policy terms, the insurer could elect to indemnify the insured either by making a payment, or by repairs or reinstatement. The measure of loss was not fixed by the policy, and could vary depending on the insured’s intention for the property and its reasons for ownership.

The judge found the plaintiff, in fact, had no intention of rebuilding the property once it was destroyed in the final earthquake.  The measure of its loss was accordingly the market value of the building it had lost, not the cost of its replacement.  Although the building had suffered damage in earlier earthquakes, the plaintiff had not repaired the building, and so had suffered no additional loss.[3]

As a result, the payment under the settlement agreement was more than adequate to cover the plaintiff’s loss (the insurer had agreed a generous market value).  The judge nonetheless proceeded to consider the merits of the plaintiff’s claim to set aside the settlement agreement.

The plaintiff alleged that Vero’s representative had misrepresented its entitlements under the policy, thereby breaching the Fair Trading Act 1986, the insurance contract and the Fair Insurance Code.  The judge held that in fact the plaintiff had been given a helpful and transparent explanation of its options.  Vero’s opinion of the correct basis for settlement and the approach to be taken to multi-event claims was commonly held (and reflected the views of the plaintiff’s own lawyers).  Such an opinion could not give rise to liability on any of the bases claimed.  Furthermore, the plaintiff did not rely upon Vero, having obtained its own independent valuation and legal advice.

Of more general interest is the plaintiff’s claim for relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.  The judge held that if the plaintiff was now correct as to its entitlements, then the parties entered into the settlement agreement based on a mutual mistake.  That mistake resulted in a substantially unequal exchange of values, which, in the absence of a contractual provision addressing the risk of mistake, would have given the Court discretion to set the settlement agreement aside.

However, the judge found the plaintiff agreed, under the terms of the settlement agreement, to accept the risk that it might have mistaken its rights.  The agreement included a broad full and final settlement of claims “arising directly or indirectly out of … the policy and/or the Insured Property Damage … [including] claims [which] … are in existence now … [whether] known or unknown [or] in the contemplation of the parties or otherwise”.  This clause, together with a recommendation that the plaintiff seek legal advice (which it did), meant that the plaintiff assumed the risk of a mistake.

The plaintiff also argued that there was no consideration for the settlement, as Vero was simply fulfilling its contractual requirement under the insurance policy.  On the facts this did not hold up: there was a dispute as to the quantum of loss and the compromise of competing claims had real value.  It is an interesting argument however, and worth bearing in mind in cases where sums due are liquidated or are readily assessed.

Back to Summary Table

[1] Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 129, click here for our review of the decision

[2] QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Wild South Holdings Ltd [2014] NZCA 447, click here for our review of the decision

[3] Relying on Wild South

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

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
Sanctions Update: Iran
In May the United States announced the re-imposition of sanctions in relation to trade with Iran
16.08.2018 Posted in Trade and Commodities
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.