Video | Agriculture | Confidence | Economy | Energy | Employment | Finance | Media | Property | RBNZ | Science | SOEs | Tax | Technology | Telecoms | Tourism | Transport | Search

 


Judgment: Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG NZ Ltd

[Judgment: SC_76_2013___Ridgecrest_NZ_Ltd_v_IAG_NZ_Ltd.pdf]

27 August 2014

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (SC 76/2013)

[2014] NZSC 117

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

The appellant, Ridgecrest NZ Ltd, was the owner of a building in Christchurch which was insured with the respondent, IAG New Zealand Ltd. Under the insurance policy, Ridgecrest was insured for loss or damage to the building, as well as replacement cover for loss or damage that is restored or replaced. The policy also contained a maximum liability limit of $1,984,000 for each “happening”. As this limit applied happening by happening, it reset after each such happening.

During the period of the policy, the building was affected by four earthquakes. As a result of either the third or fourth earthquake (“the final earthquake”), the building was damaged beyond repair.

IAG accepted that in respect of the final earthquake, it was liable to pay the maximum amount payable under the policy for any one happening, being $1,984,000, but maintains that its liability in relation to the earlier earthquakes was limited to the cost of repairs actually undertaken. IAG had commissioned builders to repair the damage to the building caused by the first two earthquakes but these repairs were never completed.

Ridgecrest claims that it is entitled not only to $1,984,000 in relation to the final earthquake but also for the damage to the building caused by the earlier earthquakes.

The parties sought a ruling from the High Court on a preliminary question as to whether Ridgecrest was entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each happening up to the limit in each case. The High Court answered the preliminary question in favour of IAG and, on appeal, the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion but on different grounds.

The appeal to this Court raised three questions for determination. First, whether the policy, construed in the context of the events that happened, required IAG to make payments in relation to the earlier earthquakes. Secondly, whether the losses resulting from the earlier earthquakes should be treated as merged or subsumed in the loss caused by the final earthquake, in accordance with, or by analogy with, the marine insurance principle that a partial and unrepaired loss merges with a subsequent total loss that occurs within the same insurance period. Thirdly, whether Ridgecrest’s claim is precluded by the indemnity principle, under which insurance policies are construed to avoid an insured recovering more than the amount of the loss.

The Supreme Court has held that under the policy wording, Ridgecrest is entitled to be paid in respect of the damage caused by the earlier earthquakes (up to the policy limit of $1,984,000 in respect of each earthquake) as well as $1,984,000 in respect of the final earthquake. The Court has also held that the merger principle does not apply given that (a) in contradistinction to the position under marine insurance policies, the wording of IAG’s policy provides for independent causes of actions in respect of the partial and unrepaired losses and the subsequent total loss, and (b) the application of the merger principle would be inconsistent with the insurance policy and in particular the resetting of the liability limit after each happening. The Court concluded that the indemnity principle was not engaged as the policy limit was not deemed to be the replacement value of the building. However, by reason of the indemnity principle, Ridgecrest is not entitled to recover more than the replacement value of the building and may not double count the losses.

The Court has unanimously allowed the appeal and, subject to the caveat that there is to be no double counting, answered the preliminary question in favour of the appellant.

[Judgment: SC_76_2013___Ridgecrest_NZ_Ltd_v_IAG_NZ_Ltd.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Business Headlines | Sci-Tech Headlines

 

Sky City : Auckland Convention Centre Cost Jumps By A Fifth

SkyCity Entertainment Group, the casino and hotel operator, is in talks with the government on how to fund the increased cost of as much as $130 million to build an international convention centre in downtown Auckland, with further gambling concessions ruled out. The Auckland-based company has increased its estimate to build the centre to between $470 million and $530 million as the construction boom across the country drives up building costs and design changes add to the bill.
More>>

ALSO:

RMTU: Mediation Between Lyttelton Port And Union Fails

The Rail and Maritime Union (RMTU) has opted to continue its overtime ban indefinitely after mediation with the Lyttelton Port of Christchurch (LPC) failed to progress collective bargaining. More>>

Earlier:

Science Policy: Callaghan, NSC Funding Knocked In Submissions

Callaghan Innovation, which was last year allocated a budget of $566 million over four years to dish out research and development grants, and the National Science Challenges attracted criticism in submissions on the government’s draft national statement of science investment, with science funding largely seen as too fragmented. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Business: Spark, Voda And Telstra To Lay New Trans-Tasman Cable

Spark New Zealand and Vodafone, New Zealand’s two dominant telecommunications providers, in partnership with Australian provider Telstra, will spend US$70 million building a trans-Tasman submarine cable to bolster broadband traffic between the neighbouring countries and the rest of the world. More>>

ALSO:

More:

Statistics: Current Account Deficit Widens

New Zealand's annual current account deficit was $6.1 billion (2.6 percent of GDP) for the year ended September 2014. This compares with a deficit of $5.8 billion (2.5 percent of GDP) for the year ended June 2014. More>>

ALSO:

Still In The Red: NZ Govt Shunts Out Surplus To 2016

The New Zealand government has pushed out its targeted return to surplus for a year as falling dairy prices and a low inflation environment has kept a lid on its rising tax take, but is still dangling a possible tax cut in 2017, the next election year and promising to try and achieve the surplus pledge on which it campaigned for election in September. More>>

ALSO:

Job Insecurity: Time For Jobs That Count In The Meat Industry

“Meat Workers face it all”, says Graham Cooke, Meat Workers Union National Secretary. “Seasonal work, dangerous jobs, casual and zero hours contracts, and increasing pressure on workers to join non-union individual agreements. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 
 
Standards New Zealand

Standards New Zealand
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Business
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news