9.05.2018

Ridgecrest New Zealand Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 129, (2014) 18 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-032

Ridgecrest is the first of a series of proceedings which addresses the vexed issue of incremental damage arising from multiple earthquake events.

Ridgecrest owned a commercial building damaged by earthquakes on 4 September 2010 and 26 December 2010.  Limited repairs were undertaken after each earthquake, but all work ceased on 22 February 2011 when a further earthquake struck.  There is an ongoing dispute as to whether the building was destroyed on 22 February, or by a later earthquake on 13 June 2011.

The building was insured under a full replacement policy, with a maximum liability for any one “happening” of $1,984,000.  That sum was considerably less than the building’s replacement value.

The parties asked the High Court to determine a preliminary question – is the plaintiff entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each happening up to the limit of the sum insured in each case?  The High Court’s response was that the insurer’s liability was limited to the cost of repairs actually undertaken and the maximum sum of $1,984,000 for the final destruction of the building.  The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion, but on different grounds.[1]

By contrast, the Supreme Court held that, on the specific wording of the policy, Ridgecrest was entitled to be paid for damage up to the limit of the sum insured for each of the earthquakes.  The total claim could not exceed the actual replacement value of the building and there could be no “double counting” (multiple claims for the same damage).

Much of the argument focused on the doctrine of merger, which had been rejected by Dobson J in the High Court, but accepted by Cooper J in the Crystal Imports proceeding.  IAG argued that Ridgecrest’s claims for partial losses from the earlier earthquakes merged into the total loss suffered in the final earthquake.  The Court reviewed the marine insurance cases in which the doctrine of merger arose.  It identified material differences between IAG’s policy and the marine insurance policies which meant that merger was inconsistent with the policy terms.  They were:

  1. The policy provided for both indemnity and replacement cover and therefore it was possible the insured could make a profit, in the sense it could recover on a replacement basis more than the actual (indemnity) value of the building.
  2. The policy did not operate on the basis of a loss assessed at the end of the risk period, but on each happening.
  3. IAG was liable to make a payment regardless of whether repairs were done.
  4. A cause of action in respect of the losses caused by each earthquake accrued immediately.
  5. The liability limit was reset after each happening.

The Court went on to consider the effect of the indemnity principle on Ridgecrest’s claim.  The principle states that an insured cannot recover more than its loss.  Noting that “indemnity principle” is an awkward phrase in the context of a replacement policy, the Court accepted that it precluded recovery of more than the actual replacement value of the property (as distinct from the sum insured).  It also prevented claims for incremental damage to the same elements of a building.  While the Court noted that it is possible for parties to deem the sum insured to be the replacement value in their policy, it declined to take that approach in Ridgecrest, due to the policy wording and the presentation of the argument before the Court.

Ridgecrest may be the end of the road for the merger doctrine in the context of event-based liability policies.  The scope and application of the indemnity principle will no doubt be the subject of further argument, depending on the facts of particular claims.  The principle was reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Wild South/Marriott/Crystal Imports and by the High Court in Morrison, which are discussed elsewhere in this update.

Back to Summary Table

[1] Read our commentary on the Court of Appeal decision here

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

Getting the Deal Through: Construction 2019
Partners Nick Gillies, Helen Macfarlane and Christina Bryant are the contributing authors of the New Zealand Chapter of the 2019 edition of “Getting the Deal Through Construction”. Getting...
19.09.2018 Posted in Construction Law
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
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.