Ministry of Justice

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...

EQC / Vero / extent of damage caused by CES / repair methodology / whether foundations were damaged by CES which require full replacement / timber framed, concrete perimeter beam on piles / HC transfer / EQC Act 1993 / Diagrams / impartiality of evidence / ‘when new’ and cost incurred policy / policy subject to Building Act 2004 and building code / burden of proof / physical damage /geotechnical evidence / structural evidence / foundation dislevelment historic / historic settlement / consequential damage to kitchen / full foundation replacement not supported by evidence / perimeter beam and piling did not suffer a material change to its functionality caused by CES / minor CES damage established to dwelling / repairs include: epoxy to perimeter foundation, consequential damage repairs, replacement of a pile, replacing broken roof, and interior linings / quantity surveyor to provide updated costings to Tribunal including P&G, Margin and GST / 10% margin / damages against EQC.

EQC –Canterbury Earthquake Sequence - EQC emergency repair payment scheme – homeowners carrying out fraud – multiples properties - misrepresentation of invoices – evidence as to the credibility of applicants – defence of cultural differences in conducting business in NZ and China – found to be wilfully carrying out fraudulent invoices.

Proper calculation of EQC cap / Earthquake Commission Act 1993, s 18 / HELD / s 18(1)’s purpose is to limit EQC’s exposure in event of major natural disaster / method to calculate cap is two-part process / examine which sub-paragraphs in s18(1) apply / then, if necessary, calculate the entitlements to identify which is the lowest / insurance policies were for “full replacement value” and did not specify a sum, therefore s 18(1)(a) cannot apply / s 18(1)(b) only applies if the policy does not specify a replacement sum but does specify an amount for which the building is to be insured under the EQC Act / s 18(2) cannot be used to quantify the s 18(1)(b) sum / s 18(2)’s purpose is to prevent homeowners from nominating an unrealistically low figure for natural disaster cover under s 18(1)(b) / on the facts, only s 18(a)(c) applies because the other two could not

Negligence / breach of contract / claim insurer breached insurance policy contract or was negligent in repairing spouting and downpipe, causing landslip / whether overspill occurred / whether drainage system earthquake damaged / evidence demonstrates water spilling from spouting after initial repairs and damage caused by earthquake / insurer was obliged to repair damage to the policy standard, and is liable for defective repairs / insurer owes duty of care to repair damage in proper manner / functionality test applied, repairs not fully functional / causation / overspill a material and substantial cause of landslip / applicants able to recover losses of constructing retaining wall / interest awarded / costs and general damages not awarded

Process of insurance contract / insurer elected to pay cash equivalent of cost of repairs / applicant claims insurer’s experts did not properly identify earthquake damage and insurer’s repair methodology not reasonable / Ginivan v Southern Response [2018] NZHC 2403 / HELD / applicants entitled to select experts and builders, choose repair methodology, develop scope of works, and enter into building contract for price they consider to be reasonable / insurer entitled to undertake its own assessments, at its expense / if insurer’s cash equivalent of cost of repairs is less than applicant’s own scope, applicants will need to meet the additional cost unless they satisfy insurer or the Tribunal the insurer’s figure is unreasonable / insufficient evidence to determine / all complaints to be addressed together  

Slip rule / application for correction to judgment / independent expert described as surveyor in substantive judgment / CV provided to Tribunal refers to additional roles not stated in judgment / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s 47(2) / non-party expert has no standing / no omission in judgment / application declined 

Hearing on three issues after case stated to High Court / first, uplift from the policy cap to the market value cap / policy cap is an overall cap on claims within one policy period, not per earthquake event / market value cap operates as an overall cap, not per earthquake event / insurer not permitted to now raise evidential issues as to scope of works, costs, and depreciation / insurer had sufficient time to commission own evidence in rebuttal / evidence before Tribunal sufficient to dispose issue / second, insurer’s entitlement to EQC payment credits when policy does not respond to that event due to policy cap / insured not permitted to be more than fully indemnified / retaining EQC payment would enable insured to recover in excess of maximum sum payable / third, liability for costs incurred by insured displacing insurer’s denial of liability / insured did not seek approval prior to engaging experts / policy required prior authorisation / insured unable to recover costs under policy...

Election under insurance policy / insured stated they did not intend to complete certain repairs / telephone conversation recorded in file note / file note is hearsay contained in business record / Evidence Act 2006, s 19 provides file note is admissible; questionable whether staff member would have useful recollection of events / whether an election under insurance policy / communication of election choice must be unequivocal / insured needs to make an informed election choice, having a reasonable appreciation of scope of damage, the work required to remediate, and the likely indemnity otherwise available / insured was not aware of difference in outcome between the two options / alternatively, election was not unequivocal as it was directed towards particular repair strategy.   

Transfer from High Court / Canterbury earthquake sequence / State insurance - IAG / defective repairs / contract of insurance with third parties / whether IAG liable for works of third parties / 1920’s house / repair standard / policy standard “when new” / scope of works / building code / contractual breaches under the building contract / functionality / aesthetics / cause of deficiencies / damages – not within scope of hearing / submissions for costs 

Procedure / dismissal / without prejudice rule / costs for bad faith / dispute over whether driveway needed to be repaired or re-laid in order to replace drains damaged by earthquake / EQC agreed to pay for cost of relaying driveway but offer rejected because it did not cover cost of bringing application / EQC sought costs for bad faith & dismissal of claim as offer resolved dispute / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s 46, s 47 / without prejudice rule waived in terms of settlement agreement but agreement on its own not enough evidence to dismiss claim / Tribunal unable to consider merits of costs application or reasonableness of offer due to without prejudice rule / EQC entitled to make settlements full & final / EQC did not act in bad faith in raising defence that applicants’ advocate agreed to repair / application dismissed.

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.