New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Earthquake commission act 1993

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2019

GOODIER v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2019] NZHC 2176

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2176
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the landslip did not cause the alleged damage to the dwelling and most of the garage; geotechnical evidence established the house was founded on competent undisturbed material unaffected by the escarpment landslip, the landslip mobilised loose fill at the escarpment only, and the plaintiffs' "vibration" theory lacked sufficient geotechnical or engineering foundation; EQC and IAG had no further liability beyond amounts already paid (including EQC underpinning payment for imminent risk).
20 Aug 2019

HE v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2019] NZCA 373

Citation

[2019] NZCA 373
Court

Court of Appeal

On the evidence as a whole the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the February 2011 earthquake materially contributed to the house's floor dislevelment; the trial judge's credibility and factual findings were entitled to deference; absent clear observable structural signs and given equivocal expert modelling, the pre‑existing static settlement was the more probable cause; EQC's cash payment for the chimney rebuild discharged its obligation and no further payment for an engineering inspection or full rebuild was warranted on the evidence.
16 Nov 2018

GOODIER v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2018] NZHC 2980

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2980
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to include additional items of damage revealed in evidence and to plead revised remediation costings (categories 1 and 2) because those matters were before the Court and justice required the pleadings reflect the real controversy, subject to defendants being given adequate opportunity to address new matters; the Court disallowed reinstatement of the abandoned s 19 general damages claim (category 3) because it had been abandoned at the outset of trial, there was no liability judgment to support awards of general damages, interest or costs…
25 Jun 2015

YARRALL & STEPHENS v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2015] NZHC 1451

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1451
Court

High Court

Rule 15.23 creates a presumption that a plaintiff who discontinues must pay the defendant's costs; no agreement to depart and no change of circumstances or conduct by the defendant justified displacing the presumption; the proceeding was misconceived, the applicants failed to serve the discontinuance and repeatedly failed to comply with directions, therefore the presumption was not rebutted and costs were ordered to the respondent in the amounts assessed.
12 Mar 2015

EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION v INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2015] NZHC 457

Citation

(2015) 22 PRNZ 427
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the interveners' applications for costs under s99A and ordered that all costs lie where they fall because the interveners primarily advanced private property interests, were not essential to the Court reaching a legitimate determination, did not make a significant and unique contribution beyond parties or amici, had been insulated from adverse costs, and the Commission acted reasonably and achieved substantial success in the proceeding.
10 Dec 2014

EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION v INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZHC 3138

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3138
Court

High Court

Increased Flooding Vulnerability and Increased Liquefaction Vulnerability, where caused by the Canterbury earthquakes and producing a present physical change in residential land that adversely affects use and amenity, constitute "natural disaster damage" to residential land under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993; subsidence of land that leaves a building intact is damage to the land not to the residential building; the Commission lawfully may settle claims by repair/reinstatement or by payment of diminution in market value where repair is infeasible or disproportionate; the Commission may p…
15 Oct 2014

FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZSC 147

Citation

[2014] NZSC 147
Court

Supreme Court

Clause MD15, read with the Brokernet Policy Certificate (which is part of the contract), manifests an objective agreement that natural disaster/top-up cover purchased from Zurich was the difference between the statutory EQC payment and the sum insured; accordingly Zurich's liability for earthquake damage is limited to that difference (net of EQC), as shown by the premium/certificate and consistent with s 30(2) EQC Act.
24 Jul 2014

WHITING v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2014] NZHC 1736

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1736
Court

High Court

The Court found that EQC's April 22, 2014 acknowledgment that the claim was over cap vindicated the plaintiffs' decision to litigate, rebutting the normal r 15.23 presumption; accordingly it was neither just nor equitable for the discontinuing plaintiffs to pay EQC costs and the plaintiffs were awarded costs, with an apportionment reflecting the presence of two defendants (EQC ordered to pay 50% of plaintiffs' claimed reasonable costs subject to specified adjustments).
17 Mar 2014

FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 19

Citation

[2014] NZSC 19
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises a significant question of law concerning whether policy sums insured are to be treated as inclusive or exclusive of EQC payments under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993; the substantive question is to be resolved on appeal.