New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity principle

Legal area

Court

7 Apr 2021

ACC v CAREY [2021] NZHC 748

Citation

[2021] NZHC 748
Court

High Court

The High Court held s155 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 permits non-lawyer representatives to have full rights of audience in ACC appeals and there is no general statutory bar to charging a fee; District Court may award costs to non-lawyer advocates but the District Court Rules scale is only a guideline and must be adapted: awards must observe the indemnity and reasonableness principles, use the schedule banded time allocations, and for lay advocates the daily lawyer rates should generally be adjusted downward (guideline of 50% of Category 1 daily rate was endorsed for straightforward…
11 Feb 2020

MATHIESON v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 136

Citation

[2020] NZHC 136
Court

High Court

The $455,000 warranty is a limit on the sum insured for a policy period (an overall cap within that period), not a per event cap; the Market Value Cap operates as an overall cap on indemnity across the earthquake sequence such that further recovery after renewal is only possible to the extent the property retained residual market value at renewal and total payments cannot exceed the market value measure of indemnity (580,000) less EQC payments.
6 Nov 2019

TOOMEY, SIMPSON and CANTERBURY TRUSTEES (2016) LTD as trustees of the TOOSIM FAMILY TRUST v IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD [2019] NZHC 2882

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2882
Court

High Court

Court, bound by Xu v IAG, struck out the claim: reinstatement benefit could not be assigned because Short had not incurred reinstatement costs at the time of assignment; Toosim cannot recover reinstatement costs it will incur; indemnity claim fails because Short suffered no financial loss when selling at market value unaware of the damage.
3 Jul 2019

RUIREN XU AND DIAMANTINA TRUST LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZSC 68 [3 July 2019]

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 600
Court

Supreme Court

Majority held that under the IAG standard replacement policy the entitlement to replacement benefits in clause 1(a) is conditional on reinstatement by the insured named in the policy and, where reinstatement by the insured has not occurred, that conditional entitlement is not assignable so as to entitle an assignee to reinstate and be reimbursed; condition 2 does not extend cover to purchasers for loss that pre-dated the sale agreement; appeal dismissed.
6 Dec 2016

PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 158

Citation

[2016] NZSC 158
Court

Supreme Court

There was no common mistake under s6 CMA 1977; the policy was a standard indemnity policy and the proper measure of Prattley's loss was the pre-event market/indemnity value (with ordinary adjustments such as demolition costs and residual land value), not cumulative repair/reinstatement costs without allowance for betterment; the settlement was therefore not voidable and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Sept 2014

QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED v WILD SOUTH HOLDINGS LIMITED AND MAXIMS FASHIONS LIMITED CA776/2013 [2014] NZCA 447

Citation

[2014] NZCA 447
Court

Court of Appeal

Automatic reinstatement clauses operate to reinstate the cover required to meet a loss immediately upon the occurrence of the insured event that caused it, with the insured concurrently incurring liability to pay any additional premium for which the policy provides; either party may cancel reinstatement by notice but such notice operates prospectively only; the doctrine of marine merger does not displace the indemnity principle under the policies before the Court; measure of indemnity for successive unremedied losses is the insured's actual combined loss (subject to policy limits), and questi…
27 Aug 2014

RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 117

Citation

[2014] NZSC 117
Court

Supreme Court

The policy, properly construed, entitled the insured to payment under clause C1 for the damage caused by the earlier earthquakes and to payment under clause C2 for the final earthquake subject to three limits: no double recovery for the same discrete damage, the per‑happening contractual limit ($1,984,000) applies and resets after each happening, and aggregate recovery cannot exceed the building's replacement value; the marine merger doctrine does not automatically apply because causes of action accrued on each happening and the policy's happening‑by‑happening resetting governs the parties' r…
27 Aug 2014

RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 129

Citation

[2014] NZSC 129
Court

Supreme Court

The policy, properly construed, required IAG to pay for damage caused by the earlier earthquakes under clause C1 and for the final earthquake under clause C2, subject to three caveats: no double counting of the same item, each happening gives rise to a separate per-happening limit (which resets), and aggregate recovery cannot exceed the building's replacement cost; the marine merger doctrine does not automatically apply to oust accrued causes of action under this non-marine policy and the indemnity principle only precludes recovery to the extent it would exceed replacement value.
13 Nov 2013

ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND v BODY CORPORATE 398983 CA393/2013 [2013] NZCA 560

Citation

[2013] NZCA 560
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause MD15, read in its commercial context, limited Zurich's liability for natural disaster damage to the net top‑up amount (the difference between the Sum Insured and statutory EQC payments); accordingly the Sum Insured was inclusive of amounts payable by the EQC and Zurich's exposure was the Sum Insured less EQC payments.
30 Jul 2013

SKYWARD AVIATION 2008 LIMITED v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1856

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1856
Court

High Court

The policy unambiguously grants the insurer the option to repair, rebuild, replace or make payment; if Tower elects to pay the cost of buying another house the payable amount is the fair price of a replacement house that is reasonably and practically comparable to the insured house when new (same area, condition, style and amenities), subject to the proviso that Tower is not obliged to pay more than the notional cost of rebuilding the house on its original site and that upfront payment is limited to present day value until replacement or repair costs are actually incurred; on the facts Tower…