Ministry of Justice

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…

Jurisdiction / EQC repairs / repairs overseen by Fletcher Construction Company Limited (EQR) / proceedings filed in District Court / house sold by mortgagee sale in 2013 / settlement agreement with EQC and EQR / ss 8, 11 and 17 of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act, 2019 / jurisdiction to bring claim to Tribunal / no current dispute between the parties which satisfies the requirements for the Tribunal.

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.

Increased Flooding Vulnerability (IFV) / EQC Act 1993 / defective repairs carried out after Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) / insurance policy with Southern Response capped at $150,000 / EQC’s liability to rectify defective repairs and make good consequential water damage / whether land is more prone to flooding as a result of the CES / mechanisms which determine IFV flooding / house 100m from water-course / EQC Act confers discretion on EQC to settle claims, with limits / suffered global settlement / land is not IFV / threshold for general damages high / claim for general damages unsuccessful.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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 …

Costs decision / application for costs against first and second respondents / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, section 47 / principles of costs awards in CEIT discussed / may be awarded when steps taken without substantial merit or in bad faith / recovery permitted for costs incurred unnecessarily as a consequence / insurer and second respondent advanced arguments without substantial merit / insurer acted in bad faith / insurer complaints of unfairness in being singled out for costs / while other respondents shared an interest with insurer in some respects, no evidence they endorsed insurer’s actions / applicants awarded costs to offset expenses unnecessarily incurred by first and second respondent’s conduct of cases.