the insurance fiasco

"Highlighting the inadequacies of the way in which the earthquakes of 2010-2012 were handled by the insurance industry! "

My Archives

Welcome to my archives. This is a list of all the posts I have written. They are sorted by theme, with the most recent posts first.

My Posts


Class Actions


MBIE Guidelines

Solving Your Claim



The Christchurch Fiasco

Guest Posts

2 thoughts on “My Archives

  1. Making a claim on an insurance policy – the usual procedure say in a car accident is the insured has the damaged vehicle removed to a repairer who produces and estimate of the repair cost and the insured completes a claim form with the relevant details and the repair estimate and forwards to their insurer. The insurer then assesses the claim and for a comprehensive policy holder instructs the garage to make the repair advising the insured to pay the repairer their excess ( which may be recovered later from the other party if they are 100% responsible) on collecting the car. The quake claim process however has been different in that contents claims generally follow the standard procedure but property damage has been reserved for EQC or Insurance Company action only with various forms of obstruction used to prevent or discourage the insured from presenting a claim. It is understandable that insurers would have concerns that fraud or overstated claims could result and be undetected with so many claims but the process adopted has clearly produced delays and credible claims of repairs being substandard and policy holders not being paid what their policy entitles them too. The confidential settlement in the O’Loughlin v Tower probably means others have no precedent to follow either in terms of what policy wording means and its interpretation or if interest or damages on claims is due, all of which gives a perception that in this case Tower have settled out of court and confidentially to achieve a situation were other policyholders have to issue to proceedings to establish their individual rights. I hope I am wrong and Tower publicly announce the principles on which the settlement is being made, in its absence the perception must be that Tower is concealing something that if publicly available would have a financial cost to Tower. In this circumstance we must look to the courts to rule as the interim decision does not address all the issues of principle so Tower will have effectively obstructed justice by abusing the system and the courts may be complicit by failing to indicate the correct legal principles involved for others to follow which surely must be in the public interest.


    • Brilliant analysis Margaret Thatcher, I agree with your sentiments. And I would encourage all policyholders not to make ‘confidential settlements’ with insurers. A settlement is a settlement it should not have to be confidential.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s