New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Business interruption

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2016

EMMONS DEVELOPMENTS NEW ZEALAND LTD v MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO LTD – Proceeding 920 [2016] NZHC 1253

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1253
Court

High Court

The Court allowed costs in Category 3 but reduced the plaintiff's claimed party-and-party costs by $13, ... resulting in an award of $44,236 for costs after disallowing $3,710 for certain memoranda and $10,290 related to an inappropriate summary judgment application; the Court declined to deduct any part of the claimed expert witness fees because withdrawal of the second cause of action was a reasonable response to defendant’s change of position.
18 Apr 2016

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON & ANOR [2016] NZHC 710

Citation

[2016] NZHC 710
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because, on the limited material before the Court, it could not be concluded that the expert quantification and the remaining judicial issues were entirely discrete; the risk of inconsistent outcomes and significant prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed the limited prejudice to defendants, and the 16 May 2016 fixture was vacated.
20 Dec 2013

SYDENHAM RECYCLING LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3518

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3518
Court

High Court

On the facts SRL failed to prove that full relocation and the claimed building costs were necessary and reasonable as at December 2011 and that the operational benefits would accrue within the indemnity period; the proposal was late and the claimed expenditures amounted to long‑term capital benefit outside the policy's indemnity limits and reinstatement exclusion, therefore insurer's refusal was objectively justified and no liability arose under clause L.
19 Mar 2010

ALAN DOUGLAS BLOOR AND ORS V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC ROT CIV-2004-463-000425

Citation

openlaw-d2e49e1a_4f36_4ef7_b677_ddb1b71d2603.pdf
Court

High Court

The insurer failed to prove material non-disclosure or inducement to avoid the policies; the Businesspack replacement cover was limited to $260,000 plus GST as per the schedule; insurer waived further disclosure by failing to inquire after relevant risk information; plaintiff succeeds on breach of contract and is awarded specified damages including penalty interest; Contractual Remedies Act and Fair Trading Act claims fail.
1 Dec 2009

PEGASUS GROUP LTD V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-6941

Citation

openlaw-df6e5078_dc51_4066_a387_0b0d5602afc7.pdf
Court

High Court

Court accepted Pegasus had proved large‑scale theft based on reconciled stocktakes, surveillance and the claimant's expert (Cregten), rejected defendants' alternative analyses and unreliable expert evidence, held QBE liable under the policy for material damage and business interruption as quantified by the court's accepted experts (subject to deductibles and set‑offs), and held AHA liable under s9 to the extent of its policy subject to its deductible and set‑off; claims for exemplary damages were rejected.

New Zealand Case Law

EMMONS DEVELOPMENTS NEW ZEALAND LTD v MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO LTD – Proceeding 920 [2016] NZHC 1253

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON & ANOR [2016] NZHC 710

SYDENHAM RECYCLING LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3518

ALAN DOUGLAS BLOOR AND ORS V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC ROT CIV-2004-463-000425

PEGASUS GROUP LTD V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-6941