The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal opened on 10 June 2019.

Search results

9 items matching your search terms

  1. D Trust v IAG New Zealand Ltd & Max C & Max E & Orange H M & Orange H G & QBE [2019] CEIT 0037 [PDF, 158 KB]

    Admissibility of evidence / litigant in person included submissions in affidavit / Tribunal prepared to make allowances for litigants in person who do not appreciate difference between submissions & evidence / counsel not expected to cross-examine arguments / homeowners not expected to incur unnecessary expense in calling expert witnesses / Tribunal has discretion to admit evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible, including hearsay evidence / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s 37 / evidence not relevant to present stage of proceedings but still relevant & necessary to proceedings / Tribunal not prepared to strike out submissions / reports of expert witnesses admissible but Tribunal not willing to rule how much weight should be given to them / parties wishing to rely on documents expected to make submissions on weight given to them.

  2. M and M v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT 0047 [PDF, 329 KB]

    Management of agreed repairs / disagreement over scope of works / determining reasonable costs / State Insurance policy / insurer required permission before expenses incurred / insurer’s control over reinstatement process / duty of good faith / implied condition that insurer obliged to have due regard to interests of insurer / insurer required to balance cost v risk / implied condition that insurer not to unreasonably withhold permission to incur expense / IAG reasonably withholding permission to replace skylights / IAG unreasonably withholding permission to seek Master Build Guarantee, to encapsulate roof, to repair T & G floor boards by gluing from below, and to incur professional inspection fees / fabric roof repair required IAG to balance weathertight risks with cost of repairs / IAG able to choose between reasonable alternative repair options for fabric roof / IAG unreasonable to refuse permission for homeowner’s proposal for repair of fabric roof as IAG’s favoured alternative rep...

  3. E and E v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT 0013 [PDF, 192 KB]

    Case stated / application for referral of question of law to High Court / whether insurer’s obligation to pay repair cost of house to policy standard includes obligation to pay reasonable cost required to remedy defective repair work / insured’s claim for earthquake damage to house accepted / repair work completed & insurer paid full contract price / repair work defective / insured claims insurer should pay for cost of bringing house up to policy standard by repairing damage & rectifying defective repairs / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s 53 / question one of contractual interpretation & so a question of law / question addresses primary cause of action raised against insured & requires urgent determination in High Court / positive or negative answer would lead to speedier & more cost effective outcome for insured / case stated likely to be provide important benefits, not only for insured, but for many other homeowners / application granted.

  4. W and W v SR [2020] CEIT 0020 [PDF, 549 KB]

    Contractual interpretation / preliminary question / whether parties entered an enforceable agreement regarding repair method during joint engineering report process / without prejudice statements / claimed contract involved experts’ conferral described as a “meeting” / agenda document produced only signed by experts in parts / claimed contract lacks normal clauses expected / not an enforceable agreement / estoppel / insurer did not represent it was willing to be bound / whether Southern Response unreasonable in failing to ratify agreement / insurer must not act unreasonably if deciding not to ratify an agreement reached by engineers / engineers did not finalise agreement about repair methodology / agreement a record of negotiations.

  5. B R L v Earthquake Commission & IAG New Zealand Ltd [2020] CEIT 0051 [PDF, 934 KB]

    Applicants sought declaration that aesthetic damage caused by 4 September 2010 earthquake to exposed concrete floor was beyond repair & required replacement of house built in 2009 /  insurer argued structure & fabric of building showed little signs of damage and replacement was disproportionate to the damage suffered  / Tribunal held proportionality not relevant to claim seeking performance of insurance obligations / proposed repair to fireplace, clearwater system & sewerage unreasonable / other proposed repair methods not unreasonable / Tribunal not prepared to make other declarations sought or determine insurer’s liability / repairs needed to be scoped & costed.

  6. L and M v Earthquake Commission [2019] CEIT 0036 [PDF, 139 KB]

    Settlement agreement / EQC paid claims for emergency repairs / subsequently investigated validity of claims and was not satisfied claims were valid / applicant and EQC agreed to repayment of claimed sums / after applicant defaulted repayments, EQC set off outstanding sum against other amounts payable to applicant / Tribunal finds applicant entered into binding settlement agreement / application for payment of emergency repair claims dismissed / applicant ordered to pay EQC outstanding balance of settlement agreement.

  7. H Trust v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2019] CEIT 0011 [PDF, 997 KB]

    Disagreement over scope of works /  Southern Response Insurance policy / interpretation of insurance contract / interpretation of ‘as new’ / application of ‘as new’ / ‘as new’ and ‘when new’ create the same outcome / repairs must meet the current building code / what repairs are required to meet the policy standard / whether to relevel or rebuild foundations under the insurance contract / Southern Response’s repair methodology to relevel is not unreasonable / whether Southern Response elected to cash settle / law on damages / Southern Response breached its duty of good faith / damages of $5,000 awarded to the insured for mental distress/ Tribunal’s power to award costs.

  8. H v Earthquake Commission and Offshore Market Placement Ltd [2019] CEIT 0025 [PDF, 307 KB]

    Application / applicant claims property experienced differential settlement of foundations, interior and exterior cracking, and chimney damage due to earthquakes / referred for acceptance / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, section 8 / section 9 / section 13 / section 17 / section 46 / application must meet section 8 criteria / namely: at time of damage by qualifying earthquake  applicant was property owner and property insured in applicant’s name; there is a dispute between applicant and an insurance company or Earthquake Commission (EQC) regarding damage claim; building was either residence or at least fifty per cent of building was used as a residence; and one of parties to claim is either EQC or an insurance company / proceedings in another forum will render application ineligible unless proceedings transferred to Tribunal, as per section 17(c) / applicant party to insurance claim in High Court, appealed to Court of Appeal / higher court proceedings involved same ...

  9. D W and A W v Earthquake Commission and State Insurance [2019] CEIT 00001 [PDF, 142 KB]

    Procedural order / second respondent seeking further particulars of claim / response filing deadline extension / first case management conference deferral / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s 15 / written response and support documents to be filed within 15 working days of service, as per s 15 / extension may be directed by Tribunal / extensions to be sought by memorandum and will be determined as without notice application, as per amended Practise Notes / respondents unable to file detailed response due to lack of application clarity / should file pro forma response and orally request further particulars at first case management conference / second respondent not involved in EQC Protocol 1 repairs as expected costs under EQC cap / claim requires commission and consideration of expert reports and other document before claim response possible / however, Tribunal not a pleadings based process / imperative to be fair, speedy, flexible and cost-effective process / discov...