• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Christchurch Ph +64 3 348 8480
  • Hokitika Ph +64 3 755 8673
  • Rolleston Ph +64 3 348 8480
Parry Field Lawyers
  • Home
  • Our People
  • Services
    • Property
      • Residential
      • Construction
      • Subdivisions
      • Commercial
      • Leasing
    • Advisory
      • Sale & Purchases
      • Financing
      • Governance
      • Technology/IT
      • Capital Raising
      • Employment
    • Disputes
      • Court, Tribunals and Arbitrations
      • Estates & Wills
      • Divorce & Separation
      • Insurance
      • Employment
      • Family
      • Company & Shareholding
      • Debt Collection
      • Construction
    • Trusts & Asset Planning
      • Wills & Enduring Powers of Attorney
      • Estates
      • Succession Planning
    • Charities/Social Enterprises
      • Not for Profits
      • Churches
      • Sports Groups
      • Social Enterprises
      • Impact Investing
      • Community Groups
    • Immigration
      • Work Visas
      • Family Visas
      • Skilled Migrants
      • Business and Investment Visas
      • Potentially Prejudicial Information
      • Employer Assistance
      • Overseas Investment
  • Resources
    • Guides
      • COVID-19 Legal Handbook
      • Buying & Selling Property
      • Death & Estates
      • Family Trusts
      • Churches Handbook
      • Start Ups Legal Toolkit
      • Social Enterprises in New Zealand Handbook
    • Articles
      • Tomorrow’s Board Diversity: The Role of Creatives
      • Charting the Future: A framework for thinking about change
      • Resources for COVID-19 Related Issues
      • The new Finance Guarantee Scheme: Could it help your business during Covid-19?
      • COVID-19: Paying your employees
      • COVID-19: Key Legal Issues for Charities
      • Making Employees Redundant – The Importance of the “Why”
    • Videos
      • Force Majeure” clauses in Contracts and COVID-19
      • Buying your first home: Key issues (a practical guide from a first home buyer)
      • Property sale and purchases and COVID-19
      • COVID-19 and Commercial Leases
      • Seeds Podcast
    • Templates
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Terms and Conditions Including Software
      • Non-Disclosure Agreement – Two Way
      • Independent Contractors Agreement
      • Shareholders’ Resolutions – Written resolution
      • Share Transfer
      • Incorporation – First Shareholder Resolutions
      • Incorporation – First Directors’ Resolutions
      • Non-Disclosure Agreement – One Way
  • Careers
  • About
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Interpreting Insurance Policies – Ramifications of the Ridgecrest decision

Court, Disputes

In August 2014, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in the case of Ridgecrest NZ Limited v IAG in respect of a preliminary question put to it based on agreed facts.  Paul Cowey was assisting counsel in the case.

While the case dealt with a preliminary question, the reasoning of the Court is instructive in three key respects:

(a) The Court’s approach to policy interpretation.

(b) The Court’s approach to the doctrine of merger – are losses resulting from earlier earthquakes “swallowed up” in losses caused by a later earthquake?

(c) The Court’s approach to the principle of indemnity, namely if an insured recovers for later losses, does it breach this principle?

This article considers the first issue – policy interpretation. We consider the second and third issues in separate following articles.

Background

  • Ridgecrest was the owner of a commercial building that suffered damage in four of the Canterbury earthquakes.
  • There was separate, distinct damage caused by each earthquake. The first damaged Ridgecrest’s roof when the parapet fell from a neighbouring building. The second caused internal non-structural damage. The third earthquake damaged the shear walls which exhausted their structural capacity. It is Ridgecrest’s position that the fourth earthquake subsequently caused structural damage to the foundation (this is still to be determined).
  • After each earthquake, both structural and quantity surveying evidence had been obtained by Ridgecrest.
  • After the first two earthquakes repairs were begun but not completed before the next earthquake.
  • The building was damaged following either the third or the fourth of the earthquakes so that the cost of the repair exceeded the sum insured.
  • The policy contained a maximum liability limit of $1,984,000 for each event. This sum insured – $1.984m + GST – was significantly less than the cost of replacing the building.
  • In issue was whether Ridgecrest was entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each earthquake up to the $1,984,000 policy limit in each case or whether the losses resulting from earlier earthquakes should be treated as having been “merged” in the loss caused by the final earthquake.

Interpreting the insurance policy

The Supreme Court construed Ridgecrest’s policy with IAG in the following way:

  • The policy provided for both indemnity (essentially the value of the building) and replacement cover (essentially the cost to replace the building which is more often than not a lot higher than indemnity value). It is therefore quite possible for an insured to make a profit in the sense of recovering (on a replacement basis) more than the actual (that is the indemnity) value of the building;
  • The policy was to be applied event by event (i.e. loss was assessed after each earthquake rather than at the end of the policy period);
  • Under the policy, the insurer could be required to pay a certain proportion of the loss before any repairs were carried out. That liability was unaffected even if such repairs were not carried out.
  • The insured’s rights in respect of losses caused by the earliest earthquakes arose immediately. For the final earthquake, which was held to have made the building a “total loss”, the insurer’s obligations to pay arises after the building is restored or replaced. In other words, the insurer could be required to pay the estimated cost of repairs after the earlier earthquakes, subject to a top up payment later being made if the building was restored or replaced.
  • The liability limit of $1.984m plus GST reset after each earthquake.

While the result of the Court’s analysis means insurers can be liable for more than the insured sum in any policy year, the Court imposed clear limits.

  • There can be no double counting by an insured (i.e. claiming for the same damage twice). In Ridgecrest, expert evidence of the separate and distinct damage, and its estimated repair cost, was obtained after each of the four earthquakes. There is no suggestion of claiming twice for the same crack, even if it has grown.
  • The claim for each event under the policy was for the estimated repair cost up to the policy limit of $1.984m. This means that an insured with replacement costs in excess of the specified sum can still be left significantly out of pocket.
  • While the cap of 1.984m resets after each event, it has been assumed that value in the building remains. If a building that is a total write-off is further damaged however, it would be difficult to demonstrate any loss resulting from such further damage.
  • The total of all claims cannot exceed the cost of actually replacing the building. This is an important restriction. The entitlement is to full, new for old value, but not more.

The Court’s reasoning provided helpful clarification to both insurers and insureds. As with most insurance issues however, much turns on the actual wording of the policy. It is therefore important to carefully read and understand your policy terms, both before loss occurs and afterwards.

If you would like any insurance advice please do not hesitate to contact Paul Cowey at paulcowey@parryfield.com.

Tags: christchurch earthquakes, indemnity, merger, multiple losses, ridgecrest
Share this entry
  • Share on WhatsApp
https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/panorama-4431362_1920.jpg 1280 1920 Leigh Gray https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Parry-Field-Lawyers-Logo.png Leigh Gray2015-01-19 01:50:432020-06-12 17:03:25Interpreting Insurance Policies – Ramifications of the Ridgecrest decision
You might also like
Combining Earthquake Losses – Ramifications of the Ridgecrest decision
Can a homeowner recover multiple losses – Ramifications of the Ridgecrest decision

Related Lawyers

Paul Cowey
Email Paul
+6433488480
View Profile

Christchurch

PHONE: +64 3 348 8480
FAX: +64 3 348 6305

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
1 Rimu Street, Riccarton,
Christchurch 8041

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 8020, Riccarton,
Christchurch, 8440

Hokitika

PHONE: +64 3 755 8673
FAX: +64 3 755 8073

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
26 Weld Street,
Hokitika 7810

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 44,
Hokitika 7842

Rolleston

PHONE: +64 3 348 8480
FAX: +64 3 348 6305

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
68 Rolleston Drive,
Rolleston, 7614

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 8020, Riccarton,
Christchurch, 8440

Make an enquiry

Parry Field Charitable Foundation

Parry Field charitable members of NZ LAw, Global Cross Legal and SCLA

Newsletter signup

70 Years of Excellence logo

© Copyright Parry Field Lawyers. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Engagement Brought to life by Happy Monday Ltd
Enforcing EQCs obligations under the EQC Act Combining Earthquake Losses – Ramifications of the Ridgecrest decision
Scroll to top