New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insurance policy interpretation

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2020

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LTD v DODDS [2020] NZCA 395 [7 September 2020]

Citation

[2020] 3 NZLR 383
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Southern Response made factual and mixed fact-law representations that the capped amount for the Buy Another House option was approximately $895,000 and that the Abridged DRA was the complete Arrow report; those representations were false and amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA and actionable misrepresentation under CCLA s35. The appropriate measure of loss is the difference between the true value of the insured's contractual entitlement and the settlement sum accepted; damages awarded were adjusted to correct a calculation error.
18 Dec 2017

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v SHIRLEY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 3190

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3190
Court

High Court

The High Court declared that for the buy another house option the insurer's cap is the notional cost of rebuilding the rental house on its present site excluding additional works that are expressly categorized as "cover for additional costs"; accordingly the buy another house cap includes the cost of rebuilding existing foundations but excludes additional foundation work required solely to satisfy current building code requirements (Enhanced Foundations) and excludes demolition costs unless those demolition costs are actually incurred by the insured and approved as additional costs; further t…
15 Nov 2017

EAST v MEDICAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2802

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2802
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiffs were preponderantly successful on the crucial issue of the proper measure/scope of works, the defendant must pay costs on a 2B scale adjusted to exclude four hours of evidence on lost issues and to reduce the allowance for submissions by 33.3%; specific disbursements awarded: geotechnical expert Mr Duke allowed, Dr Jain fees and common bundle printing reserved for later determination or verification; second counsel not certified; defendant ordered to pay costs $25,799.36 and disbursements $43,167.43 subject to determination whether plaintiffs actually incurred them.
22 Jul 2015

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 110

Citation

[2015] NZSC 110
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that the correct approach is to estimate the actual cost of rebuilding on the site and that such an estimate properly includes reasonable contingency allowances and professional fees assessed by orthodox quantity surveying practice; a notional rebuild does not eliminate the existence of risks or justify excluding contingencies or realistic professional fees, so the Court of Appeal's approach was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
4 May 2015

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 49

Citation

[2015] NZSC 49
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to decide whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that, under the parties' insurance policy, the respondent remained entitled to claim allowances for contingencies and professional fees despite having elected to purchase a replacement property.
29 Nov 2013

PRINCIPAL FINANCE LIMITED v HALSE [2013] NZHC 3159

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3159
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to decline the plaintiff's costs application because the plaintiff and defendants had overlapping interests and could have been jointly represented; only one costs award was appropriate against the insurer; the preliminary questions application was interlocutory but the determination was substantive between defendants and the third party, so costs were assessed on a Category 2B basis using Schedule items and a 20% reduction for the issue on which the third party succeeded, resulting in an order that QBE pay $20,248.64 to the defendants.
19 Sept 2013

SKYWARD AVIATION 2008 LIMITED v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2452

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2452
Court

High Court

Costs should lie where they fall because both parties achieved mixed success on the preliminary issues, the questions had wider public interest implications under Tower's policy wording, and Tower was substantially wrong on a crucial point concerning valuation basis for replacement houses, justifying refusal of an order for costs under High Court Rules r 14.7(e).
26 Feb 2010

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V DOUGLAS NORMAN SCOTT HC ROT CIV 2008-463-909

Citation

openlaw-2f78596c_1fc2_46f8_bbc2_321405f901cf.pdf
Court

High Court

Time for limitation purposes ran from the insured event (the stroke) and, in any event, the insurer was in breach no later than its refusal on 14 February 1997; accordingly the cause of action was statute barred and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as not raising a sufficiently arguable question.
26 Feb 2010

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V DOUGLAS NORMAN SCOTT HC ROT CIV 2008-463-909

Citation

openlaw-ea40833c_eaab_42c4_a557_3cc12be62d7b.pdf
Court

High Court

Time for limitation purposes runs from the insured event for an indemnity policy and, alternatively, under ordinary contract accrual the insurer's refusal on 14 February 1997 constituted the breach that started limitation; therefore the claim was statute barred and the leave application raised no serious question for appeal.
18 Dec 2009

AUSTRALIAN CEDAR PTY LIMITED V EASTOWN TIMBER PRODUCTS LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2008-483-23

Citation

openlaw-8d1158ee_d852_42b5_a6e2_95d7b365cde1.pdf
Court

High Court

IAG failed to discharge the onus for a defendant's summary judgment because it did not demonstrate that Eastown's causes of action cannot succeed; there is a reasonably arguable interpretation that the Worldwide extension covers the pleaded claims and that the efficacy exclusion is ambiguous or narrower than IAG contends, and negligence to inspect/warn can be viewed as collateral to the defect and thus arguable covered; accordingly summary judgment and strike out must be dismissed and the claims proceed to trial.