Below is the IAG limitation position.  If you are an assignee you have 1 week to sue or your claim is statute barred.  This applies to all IAG brands.

IAG’s position for all of its brands is that in respect of claims by our customers relating to policies which cover their contents and customer occupied home, IAG will not deploy the Limitation Act as a defence to proceedings served on IAG before 1st July 2018.

Other types of potential litigants, who do not enjoy this blanket extension include:

a. Assignees of insurance claims; 
b. Body Corporate Policy holders; 
c. Non- residential building policy holders; 
d. Business Interruption cover and other commercial policy holders.

Customers (not assignees) excluded from the blanket extension, will be considered on a case by case basis, but exceptional circumstances would be required, to avoid IAG utilising the Limitation Act defence.


Progress reported on Kaikoura earthquake claims

16 August 2017

Just over one-third – 34% – of the 38,000-plus residential claims from the Kaikoura earthquake managed by EQC and private insurers had been settled at 31 July 2017, EQC says.

In a progress report on insurance claims from the earthquake, EQC says 62% of building claims had had their initial assessment completed at 31 July – up from 51% assessed and 28% settled at 30 June.

So far EQC says it has paid $39.1 million to insurers who manage EQC customers and $21 million to customers that EQC manages (land and/or properties with open or unresolved claims for prior natural disaster damage).

It says the focus continues to be on the hardest hit communities within Marlborough, Kaikoura and Hurunui, meaning assessment and settlement progress there has been greater.

EQC is on track for “the majority” of Kaikoura earthquake customers to receive their settlements by the end of 2017, it says.

Kaikoura MOU Variation

EQC also says that private insurers and EQC recently signed a variation to the Memorandum of Understanding relating to Kaikoura earthquake claims management.

The original MOU covered the management of EQC claims for damage arising from earthquakes centred “in and around” Kaikoura between 14 November and 13 December 2016. The variation extends the time period of the original MOU and now covers EQC claims for damage arising from earthquakes “in and around” Kaikoura from 14 December 2016 through to 13 December 2017.

EQC says the effect of the variation is that if a homeowner has previously lodged a Kaikoura earthquake-related EQC claim, the new claim will be assessed and settled by the same insurer who managed their previous Kaikoura earthquake-related EQC claim.

If a homeowner is lodging an earthquake-related EQC claim for the first time as a result of another Kaikoura area earthquake, the claim is for land damage, or they have an open EQC claim from a previous event (such as the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes), their claim will be managed by EQC.

In Xu & anor v IAG & anor [2017] NZHC 1964 the High Court (Nation J) decided that reinstatement rights/benefits were not assignable to a new owner where the earthquakes occurred before the new owner took ownership and the previous owner purported to assign the rights/claims by a deed of assignment.  So the new owner was only entitled to indemnity value as an assignee.  The rights under the policy were held to be personal rights of the insured.  The High Court applied the Court of Appeal decision in Bryant v Primary Industries [1990] 2 NZLR 142.  The Xu decision will be subject to an appeal.   It will cause problems for assignees and maybe people that gave advice about recoverability.