A lawyer acting for Christchurch home-owners short changed in earthquake settlements says a new plan announced by the government is likely to run into trouble.
Last year in a landmark case, the High Court found the government's claim settlement agency, Southern Response, misled and deceived Karl and Alison Dodds.
It ordered the government to pay the couple nearly $180,000.
The government has now set up a package for other Southern Response claimants who settled before October 2014.
Its estimated about 3000 people will be eligible to benefit.
But most of them are already taking part in a class action led by Brendan and Colleen Ross.
Their lawyer Grant Cameron speaks to Corin Dann.
What are the lessons from the Christchurch earthquakes? The Government was slow in their quake response, but does that mean we should give more property market power to the private sector?
A Christchurch couple locked in an ongoing legal battle with state-owned quake insurer Southern Response says it is sobering for a Court of Appeal decision to go their way, one decade on from the harrowing earthquakes.
An earlier High Court decision found Southern Response guilty of misleading and deceptive behaviour when it short-changed Karl and Alison Dodds tens of thousands of dollars after their quake damaged house was written off.
The Dodds say they were tricked into accepting a lower offer from Southern Response only to later discover the insurer had kept secret from them a second higher estimate to rebuild their damaged house, a so-called second secret detailed repair and rebuild analysis (DRA).
The High Court ordered Southern Response to pay the Dodds almost $180,000 in damages, plus costs.
But the government appealed the decision, saying it needed clarity, because of the thousands of similar cases it could be liable for.
The Court of Appeal reduced the damages Southern Response has to pay $10,656.44 due to an earlier error in calculations.
The Minister responsible Grant Robertson has declined to be interviewed.
Southern Response also declined to be interviewed. Neither have ruled out appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.
