Linkedin
Twitter
Online account payment
Client toolkit
Wynn Williams are one of the New Zealand's pre-eminent law firms, with a significant depth and range of resources across many legal disciplines.
Search this website
Home
Expertise
Sectors
Services
Publications
Legal articles & publications
Other publications
Firm news
Video Updates
People
About
Client Toolkit - About AML
Client care
Health & safety at Wynn Williams
Community
Your feedback
New Zealand
Doing Business in New Zealand
Investing in New Zealand
Living in New Zealand
Events
Careers
Current Vacancies
Contact us
Close menu
Search for:
Another Look at Destruction, Automatic Reinstatement and Deductibles
Published: 17/12/2013
Join our mailing list
By: Emily Walton
Download article
Hot on the tail of the recent decision in
Wild South Holdings
1
the High Court has had another post-quake opportunity to analyse a commercial material damage insurance policy, this time one of Vero's. In
Marriott v
Vero
2
Justice Dobson was asked to answer a number of questions:
When is an insured building
"destroyed"
for the purposes of the policy?
Does the sum insured reinstate after each earthquake event?
Are the policyholders entitled to repair costs up to the sum insured for the damage caused by each earthquake event?
Is the excess/deductible deducted from the amount of the loss or from the payment due under the policy?
The Marriotts' two small commercial buildings, which shared a common wall, were damaged in the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes. Vero says the buildings were destroyed for the purposes of the policy in the February 2011 earthquake. The Marriotts maintain that the building suffered further damage in the 13 June 2011 earthquake (post-renewal).
When is an insured building destroyed for the purposes of the policy?
The Marriotts' two small commercial buildings, which shared a common wall, were damaged in the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes. Vero says the buildings were destroyed for the purposes of the policy in the February 2011 earthquake. The Marriotts maintain that the building suffered further damage in the 13 June 2011 earthquake (post-renewal).
When is an insured building destroyed for the purposes of the policy?
The Marriotts argued that the buildings were not destroyed until the extent of the damage was such that they were not able to be repaired. They said this depends on the physical state of the buildings and the practicalities of repair. Vero argued that when a building becomes uneconomic to repair, it is deemed "destroyed". The relevance of the question is that, if Vero is right and, after the first event the building is uneconomic to repair, the subject matter of the policy is destroyed so there is nothing left to insure for the second event. There can only be one claim. Justice Dobson accepted that the assessment is a physical one and found that an insured building is destroyed for the purposes of this policy when the extent of damage makes it physically impractical to repair the building to its pre-damage condition.
Does the sum insured reinstate after each earthquake event?
Similar to most Reinstatement of Sum Insured clauses, the Marriotts' policy provided that, in the absence of written notice by Vero or the insured to the contrary, the amount of insurance cancelled by a loss is to be fully reinstated as from the date of the occurrence. Justice Dobson found that the event of loss operates as a trigger for a claim, leading to a reduction in the insurance available to the insured
3
. The sum insured reinstates after every event and does not need to await finite qualification of the extent of loss.
4
The practical constraint on giving notice is that it must be given prospectively
5
and the notice must occur before the insured's reasonable reliance on reinstatement of the sum insured estops the insurer from denying it had occurred
6
. So if, Vero had not notified the Marriotts the sum insured had not reinstated before the second event, it is taken to have reinstated.
Justice Dobson did note that, while the notice must be given prospectively, there is no period of warning before reinstatement does not apply. This may catch some insureds by surprise, as that notice will take effect immediately. The insured then bears the risk of having reduced cover from the date of that notice until it can find alternate cover. This may put them in breach of their lease or mortgage conditions. His Honour suggests that a prudent insured would move promptly to arrange alternative insurance from that point on. One wonders whether such cover would ever be available however.
Are the Marriotts entitled to repair costs up to the sum insured for the damage caused by each earthquake event?
Vero's primary obligation is to indemnify after each occurrence. It is not required to meet repair costs until those costs are incurred. Therefore, the Marriotts are entitled to be indemnified (in that case quantified on the basis of depreciated replacement cost) for the earlier event and the reinstatement up to the policy limit for the February event.
Is the excess as deductible deducted from the amount of the loss or from the payment due under the policy?
Justice Dobson confirmed Justice Fogarty's finding in
Wild South
, that the excess is to be deducted from the payment otherwise due under the policy, not from the gross value of the loss, which may exceed the sum insured and mean no deductible is payable.
It will be interesting to see whether an appeal will be lodged.
1
Wild South Holdings Ltd and Maxims Fashions Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd
[2013] NZHC 2781 (Wild South).
2
Marriott v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited
[2013] NZHC 3120 [26 November 2013].
3
Marriott v Vero
at [57].
4
Marriott v Vero
at [91].
5
Marriott v Vero
at [58].
6
At [58].
Download this article in PDF format
Back to the Legal Articles & Publications
Share this page via social media
Print this page
Share this page by e-mail
Share this page on social media:
Recipient
Sender's e-mail
Captcha (anti-spam)
Enter security code:
Top
Wynn Williams Client Toolkit
Online services
Online account payment
Close menu
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with stylesheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so. The latest version of
Firefox
,
Safari
or
Google Chrome
will work best if you're after a new browser.