The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal opened on 10 June 2019 and is yet to make any decisions on the claims before it.

Search results

4 items matching your search terms

  1. 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...

  2. 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.

  3. 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 ...

  4. 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...