The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal opened on 10 June 2019.

Search results

28 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. G v EQC [2021] CEIT 2019-0056 [PDF, 874 KB]

    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.

  5. W v EQC [2021] CEIT 2019-0007 [PDF, 820 KB]

    EQC – order sought to reopen full and final settlement agreement made in the CEIT – EQC oppose reopening of agreement – homeowners accepted cash payment offer to settle defective repairs – jurisdictional defence of CEIT raised – ss 46(8)(a) and 8 CEIT Act 2019 – homeowners argue they were given guarantees by the CEIT and EQC that they could return to Tribunal if items were worse than quoted –  homeowners claim duress with signing settlement agreement – person acting as agent of EQC – EQC seek costs against homeowners – costs denied –  reopening settlement agreement struck out – transcript of proceedings as evidence.

  6. P Trust v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2020] CEIT 0024 [PDF, 225 KB]

    Expert advisors / appointment of independent engineer as expert facilitator / applicant objected to appointment on basis engineer had worked for respondent in a number of claims / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, s25 / engineer worked for a variety of insurers & claimants / s25 requires actual rather than apparent bias / actual bias requires a real connection between expert & party such that their independence is affected / no evidence of actual bias / engineers not fiduciaries & their duty is simply to advise / no conflict of interest where engineer appears as an expert witness against former principal.

  7. ADL v Earthquake Commission [2019] NZCEIT 0006 [PDF, 127 KB]

    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

  8. L and M v Earthquake Commission [2019] CEIT 0036 [PDF, 169 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.

  9. AJE, CDE, and JPS as Trustees of the EE Family Trust v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZCEIT 9: [PDF, 348 KB]

    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

  10. D (D G Family Trust) v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCEIT 37 [PDF, 605 KB]

    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

  11. W v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2020] NZCEIT 20 [PDF, 248 KB]

    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  

  12. M (C M Trust) v Tower Insurance Ltd [2019] NZCEIT 12 [PDF, 213 KB]

    Further discovery application / applicants seek disclosure of internal communications, documents and advice regarding applicants’ eligibility for further repairs / also seek disclosure of legal opinion on basis insurer waived privilege / insurer contends discovery obligations discharged, legal opinion privileged / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, section 15 / section 40 / schedule 2, clause 13 / Evidence Act 2006, s 65 / CEIT Practice Note / Tribunal may order discovery / broader search parameters may discover further relevant internal communications, documents, and advice / insurer directed to conduct further search and discover any further documents / legal opinion privileged / privilege not waived / reference to legal opinion was in internal communication / not sent to applicants / not a voluntary disclosure of a significant part of the legal opinion inconsistent with privilege

  13. CMT CEI-19-012 Dec-29-Mar-2021 [PDF, 292 KB]

    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...

  14. CEIT 2020 0024 LS v MIS-Decision [PDF, 365 KB]

    Litigation funding agreement / application by insurer to modify insured’s litigation funding agreement / concern cancellation clause may pose barrier to settlement / whether litigation funding agreement an abuse of process / Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Ltd [2014] 1 NZLR 91 / funding agreement not an assignment of bare cause of action / insurer’s proposed amendment not justifiable / however, potential conflict between funder as adviser and cancellation clause risks litigation could be used for a collateral purpose, the funder’s profit / Tribunal orders insured and funder to modify agreement to require independent advice if funder intends to cancel agreement  CB

  15. CEIT-2020-0024-LS-v-MIS [PDF, 387 KB]

    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.   

  16. D v IAG [2020] CEIT 0037 [PDF, 1.8 MB]

    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 

  17. G v Earthquake Commission [2020] CEIT 0010 [PDF, 289 KB]

    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

  18. KB and SB v Earthquake Commission [2020] CEIT 0021 [PDF, 222 KB]

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.