• Facebook
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
Parry Field Lawyers
  • Home
  • About
    • Insights
    • Terms of Engagement
    • Testimonials
  • Our People
  • Services
    • Property Law
      • Residential Property
      • Property Construction
      • Commercial Property
      • Property Leasing
      • Subdivisions
      • Community Housing Information Hub
    • Advisory
      • Employment Hub
      • Sale and Purchase
      • Financing
      • Governance
      • Technology/ IT
      • Artificial Intelligence (AI) Hub
    • Disputes
      • Court. Tribunals, Arbitrations
      • Estates and Wills
      • Divorce and Separation
      • Insurance
      • Employment Hub
      • Family
      • Company and Shareholding
      • Debt Collection
      • Construction
    • Trusts and Asset Planning
      • Wills and Enduring Powers of Attorney
      • Estates
      • Succession Planning and Asset Protection
      • Trust Management
    • Charities/For Purpose Organisations
      • Charities: Information Hub & Healthchecks
      • Governance Essentials
      • Incorporated Societies: Information Hub
      • Faith Groups: Information Hub
      • Impact Investing: Information Hub
      • Social Enterprises/Impact Companies
      • Start-ups and Capital Raising Hub
      • Schools & Education: Information Hub
    • Immigration and Migrants (移民)
      • Work Visas 工签
      • Family Visas 家庭签证
      • Skilled Migrants 技术移民
      • Business and Investment Visas 生意与投资签证
      • Potentially Prejudicial Information 回复移民局质疑 (PPI)
      • Employer Assistance 雇主协助
      • Overseas Investment 海外投资
  • Resources
    • Guides
    • Articles
    • Case Studies
    • Blog
      • Aotearoa Impact Sector Updates
    • Templates
    • Videos
    • Seeds Podcast
  • Careers
    • Careers at Parry Field
    • Current Opportunities
    • Summer Clerk Programme
  • Contact
    • Healthcheck
  • Pay Online
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

What is an Old for Old Indemnity Policy

Court, Disputes

The High Court decision in Lee v IAG[1] provides clarification both on what measure of indemnity should be used, and how to calculate it.

 

An ‘indemnity’ policy is short hand for a policy that obliges an insurer to pay the insured  enough to put them back in the position they were in before the loss happened (old for old basis).  The occurrence of the peril (like a fire or earthquake) puts an obligation on the insurer. When do they have to pay? In an indemnity policy, the payment trigger is the happening of an insured event.  This is unlike ‘replacement’ policies.  In these policies, only once the insured has incurred the cost of repair must the insurer reimburse.

 

So, what does it mean to be indemnified?  What does it mean to be put back into the position you were in before the loss happened?

 

As with all contractual relationships, the starting point is the contract itself.  Some indemnity policies explain how the indemnity is to be calculated.

 

But what if the contract does not explain the measure and says “We will indemnify you for any insured loss”?

 

Fortunately, we have the benefit of centuries of common law authorities to guide us.  It is ancient law that where an indemnity policy is silent on the appropriate measure, the indemnity is a question of fact.  The question will be answered with particular regard to the nature and intentions of the insured party and the purpose served by the insured property.[2]

 

Lee v IAG concerned a three-story commercial building on Manchester Street.  IAG originally paid $672,750 being its estimate of the ‘market indemnity value’.[3]  By the time the proceeding came to Court, IAG had accepted that the appropriate measure of indemnity was actually the “estimated cost of restoring [the] business assets as nearly as possible to the same condition they were in immediately before the loss or damage happened using current materials and methods.”

  

The question before the Court was how that ‘estimated cost’ was to be calculated.  The Court was asked to give guidance about the extent to which betterment should apply.  The Court concluded that the estimated cost is found by allowing to restore “the property to the same condition as it was before the event that caused the damage or loss, and deducting for any betterment to the insured because the restored building in whole or in part be in new condition rather than old.”[4]

 

The critical point is that betterment should be deducted by reference to the extent which the restored building is in a better physical condition.

 

This requires a qualitative comparison between what was there at the time of loss and what will be put back.  For example, if a brick wall collapses, the replacement of it with a new brick wall, while ‘new’ may not necessarily be any better than the previous wall; in such a case, it may not be appropriate to make a deduction for betterment.

 

By contrast, if the same wall being replaced previously had old, decaying lime mortar that was now being replaced with new cement, the new mortar is better than the old and would justify a better deduction.

 

The case makes four key points:

  • Reduction in market value is not necessarily the correct measure of ‘indemnity’;
  • When the indemnity is to be calculated by reference to estimated building costs, betterment will only apply to parts of the repair that leave the building better off than it was;
  • Assessing whether a repair leaves the building ‘better’ is a qualitative exercise, made by evaluating the extent to which new parts of the building are any better than the parts of the building they are replacing.
  • It follows that allowing for secondhand materials may obviate the need for deducting for betterment.

 

Should you need any assistance with these, or with any other Dispute matters, please contact Paul Cowey at Parry Field Lawyers (+64 3 348 8480).

 

 

[1] Lee & Or v IAG New Zealand Limited [2018] Llyod’s Rep. IR 345

[2] Earthquake Commission v Insurance Council of New Zealand [2015] 2 NZLR 381 at [109];

Reynolds v Phoenix Insurance Co Limited [1978] 2 Llyod’s Rep 440 (QB) at 451.

[3] Lee & Or v IAG New Zealand Limited [2018] Llyod’s Rep. IR 345 at [4].

[4] At [54]

https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/tree-4433521_1920.jpg 1080 1920 Tasha Fraser https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Parry-Field-Lawyers-Logo.png Tasha Fraser2019-08-26 13:11:142020-05-27 19:37:23What is an Old for Old Indemnity Policy

Christchurch CBD

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

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
Level 1, 60 Cashel Street
Christchurch 8013, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 744
Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

Christchurch

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

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
1 Rimu Street, Riccarton,
Christchurch 8041, New Zealand

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

Rolleston

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

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
Level 1, 80 Rolleston Drive,
Rolleston, 7614, New Zealand

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

Hokitika

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

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
127 – 137 Revell Street,
Hokitika 7810, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 44,
Hokitika 7842, New Zealand

Parry Field Charitable Foundation

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

© Copyright – Parry Field Lawyers     |     Privacy Policy

Insurers Exposed to Paying Interest for DelayIs sport charitable?
Scroll to top