6 Dec 2022
MOORHOUSE COMMERCIAL PARK LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3260
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 3260
- Court
- High Court
[2022] NZHC 3260
New Zealand Case Law
Indemnity value
11 Sept 2015
AAI LIMITED v 92 LICHFIELD STREET (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 2190
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 2190
- Court
- High Court
The Court stayed enforcement of the judgment only to the extent of the disputed amount ($1,873,000) and required immediate payment of the insurer's assessed indemnity value ($4,627,000) within five working days with the balance of the judgment and costs ($1,873,000 and $9,314) to be held in the applicant's solicitor trust account in joint names pending appeal; liquidation proceedings and advertising were stayed pending determination of the appeal because indemnity value is payable under the policy and releasing the full judgment to an insolvent respondent would render appeal rights nugatory a…
13 Aug 2015
TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED v DOMENICO TRUSTEE LIMITED CA303/2015 [2015] NZCA 372 [13 August 2015]
- Citation
- [2015] NZCA 372
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because Tower had not made an unequivocal election to settle by immediate cash payment on the pleaded basis and the High Court erred in making a finding that an election had been made by reason of delay where that cause of action was not pleaded and the insurer was prejudiced; the matter must be reheard in the High Court.
13 May 2015
NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION v INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 59
- Citation
- [2015] 1 NZLR 672
- Court
- Supreme Court
Where indemnity cover combined with excess of indemnity cover results in aggregate cover exceeding the property's indemnity value, s 48(6)(c) governs and the levy is computed on the fair and reasonable indemnity value; s 48(7) excludes only the portion that is in excess of that indemnity value, not entire excess policies which also provide indemnity cover; a collective placement structured as NZPC is for s 48 purposes to be treated as separate contracts/policies per insured party, therefore levies are assessed per insured contract and the declarations below were wrongly made and are set aside.
16 Mar 2015
MICHALIK v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION (COSTS) [2015] NZHC 490
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 490
- Court
- High Court
The Court held EQC adopted the correct depreciated replacement cost methodology to determine indemnity value under s19(b) and awarded EQC 75% of its scale costs plus full disbursements; EQC's Calderbank offer did not alter the costs outcome and the case did not justify departure from the usual costs rule as a test or public interest case.
17 Sept 2014
MICHALIK v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2014] NZHC 2238
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 2238
- Court
- High Court
EQC lawfully applied the 'indemnity value' measure under s19 of the EQC Act by using a depreciated replacement cost methodology based on expert valuation and engineering evidence; that approach is consistent with the statute, legislative history, insurance principles and valuation practice, and judicial review was dismissed.
22 Feb 2013
TJK (NZ) LIMITED V MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO LTD HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-2138
- Citation
- openlaw-9f14ef4d_9496_48c5_b903_255d4733f96e.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Extension MD022 must be read as providing both (a) an immediate liability to pay indemnity value (the loss suffered at the time of damage) and (b) reinstatement cover as a separate top-up to be paid as reinstatement costs are actually incurred; insurer is presently liable to pay not less than the indemnity value of Clarendon Tower, subject to proof of loss and credit for sums already paid.
17 Dec 2012
INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED V NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION HC AK CIV 2011-404-3468
- Citation
- openlaw-999ef82d_63cb_478f_af4b_957db2b51286.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The court held that s 48(6)(c) "indemnity value" means the value of the loss for which the contract provides (normally the stated sum insured) and that s 48(7) excludes from the levy any insurance cover that is in excess of that indemnity value; consequently split-tier excess-of-indemnity cover is not subject to the levy, and a composite policy (like the Ports Collective policy) is a single policy for levy purposes so one levy is payable computed on the aggregate indemnity sum disclosed in the policy.