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.
Southern Response is back in court today - this time having a final go at arguing that a class action against it should not be an 'opt-out'.
Christchurch residents Brendan and Colleen Ross say the state insurer deliberately withheld the true cost of repairing their home which was damaged in the Canterbury earthquakes.
They are now among 3000 people represented in a class action led by Christchurch lawyer Grant Cameron.
In September last year the Court of Appeal decided the class action could proceed on an 'opt-out' basis - which means it would cover more people and potentially cost the state-owned insurer more money if it loses.
Southern Response is challenging that decision in the Supreme Court, a two day hearing wrapped up on Tuesday.
Checkpoint reporter Logan Church was there.
This thesis is a creative and critical exploration of how transmedia storytelling meshes with political documentary’s nature of representing social realities and goals to educate and promote social change. I explore this notion through Obrero (“worker”), my independently produced transmedia and transjournalistic documentary project that explores the conditions and context of the Filipino rebuild workers who migrated to Christchurch, New Zealand after the earthquake in 2011. While the project should appeal to New Zealanders, it is specifically targeted at an audience from the Philippines. Obrero began as a film festival documentary that co-exists with strategically refashioned Web 2.0 variants, a social network documentary and an interactive documentary (i-doc). Using data derived from the production and circulation of Obrero, I interrogate how the documentary’s variants engage with differing audiences and assess the extent to which this engagement might be effective. This thesis argues that contemporary documentary needs to re-negotiate established film aesthetics and practices to adapt in the current period of shifting technologies and fragmented audiences. Documentary’s migration to new media platforms also creates a demand for filmmakers to work with a transmedia state of mind—that is, the capacity to practise the old canons of documentary making while comfortably adjusting to new media production praxis, ethics, and aesthetics. Then Obrero itself, as the creative component of this thesis, becomes an instance of research through creative practice. It does so in two respects: adding new knowledge about the context, politics, and experiences of the Filipino workers in New Zealand; and offering up a broader model for documentary engagement, which I analyse for its efficacy in the digital age.
