New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Merger doctrine

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2014

MORRISON and CROSS v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2344 [25 September 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2344
Court

High Court

The Weidlinger modelling is admissible and substantially helpful as an input to allocate relative ground-shaking impact but cannot be applied arithmetically as the sole method to fix repair apportionment; assessment requires qualitative and quantitative judgment. On the balance of probabilities the bulk of damage occurred on 22 February 2011, with additional material damage from the September 2010 and June 2011 events; December 2010 and April 2011 did not cause material additional damage on the evidence. Vero is therefore liable to indemnify for the September (already paid), February and June…
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.
6 Mar 2014

MILLBROOK COUNTRY CLUB LTD v S.F.M. INVESTMENTS LTD and ANOR [2014] NZHC 380

Citation

[2014] NZHC 380
Court

High Court

Specific performance was refused because damages were an adequate remedy for the unpaid contractual instalment and the settlement agreement did not expressly preserve the contractual rate of interest after judgment; therefore the appropriate relief is judgment for the unpaid sum with contractual interest up to entry of judgment and statutory judgment interest thereafter.
19 Dec 2013

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON [2013] NZHC 3513

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3513
Court

High Court

The Court construed the policy to give effect to the Reinstatement of Sum Insured clause so that, absent timely written notice to the contrary, the sum insured is automatically reinstated from the date of each loss and is available for subsequent insured events; however the doctrine of merger applies so that unrepaired damage from the September earthquake was subsumed into the February total loss such that defendants' liability for September damage is limited to sums already paid before February and thereafter liability is limited to the full sum insured per item; the Average clause valuation…
11 Aug 2010

WESTPAC NZ LTD V D I WRIGHT HC AK CIV-2010-404-001023

Citation

openlaw-5f73f711_76a8_4cac_a8fe_772e502c7774.pdf
Court

High Court

Courts cannot grant a prospective money judgment for contractual interest that falls due after the date of judgment; however contractual provisions for interest after judgment may be enforced by equitable orders (specific performance) which are prospective and may be made subject to terms permitting variation or discharge to address future changes, and such orders can be enforced under rules equating orders with judgments.
15 Mar 2007

ASB BANK LIMITED V TENG HC AK CIV 2006-404-5849

Citation

openlaw-88bf1e65_dc14_4c17_8821_b717132e7fe3.pdf
Court

High Court

The contractual interest provisions did not expressly provide for interest to continue after entry of judgment and there was no evidence of extant securities preserving contractual interest; therefore the contractual interest did not survive judgment and the application to recall or vary the judgment was declined.

New Zealand Case Law

MORRISON and CROSS v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2344 [25 September 2014]

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

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

MILLBROOK COUNTRY CLUB LTD v S.F.M. INVESTMENTS LTD and ANOR [2014] NZHC 380

CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED v CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON [2013] NZHC 3513

WESTPAC NZ LTD V D I WRIGHT HC AK CIV-2010-404-001023

ASB BANK LIMITED V TENG HC AK CIV 2006-404-5849