A Christchurch couple in a long running dispute over the insurance payout for their earthquake damaged home have reached an out-of-court settlement with Southern Response.
The class action was brought on behalf of former AMI Insurance/Southern Response policyholders who believe the company misled them into settling their claims for less than their policies entitled them to.
The lawyer for Brendan and Colleen Ross, Grant Cameron, talks to Max Towle about the settlement.
New Zealanders are paying too much for house and contents insurance, according to a new survey. Consumer NZ's price comparison survey shows climate and natural hazard risk is being factored in, and is more expensive than ever. Quotes for a large house differed by more than $3,000 across Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and there's a more than $2,000 difference between the cheapest and most expensive policies on offer for a standard-sized house. If you live somewhere with a higher chance of earthquakes - such as Wellington or Christchurch - you'll be charged more for insurance. The cost of house and contents insurance has risen by 5.6% this year, over the past ten years it's gone up 150%. Kathryn is joined by Consumer NZ's Gemma Rasmussen and Katrina Shanks Chief Executive of Financial Advice New Zealand, which represents independent and professional financial advisors.
This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
