Movement Needed For “On Solds”

Expected and understandable.

That from Christchurch insurance advocate and owner of an “on sold” property, Ali Jones.

The Earthquake Tribunal Bill released today excludes owners of “on sold” properties from being able to access the proposed process.

“The “on sold” issue is complex, as the earthquake tribunal bill makes clear in its general policy statement around jurisdiction and that is why the Government is planning to run a declaratory judgement,” she says. “The issue is not going away and the hundreds possibly thousands of “on sold” owners need some clarity and soon so I do hope they get on with it,” she says.

Jones says there will have been ongoing discussions with the major players including lawyers, EQC and private insurers as the declaratory judgement is pulled together and that is not likely to be an easy road.

“The financial costs related to being liable for the “on sold” properties will run into the hundreds of millions possibly more and I am sure that slowing down the progress of getting a case before the courts to decide that liability, is very likely a tactic the insurers will be using,” she says. “The Insurance Council has generally not been helpful or positive for claimants in this post-quake environment.”

The Insurance Council of New Zealand has also consistently made very clear its unhappiness at the plans to establish an Earthquake Tribunal, at one stage calling the move “misguided”.

“Despite issuing a release today headlined “ICNZ welcomes Canterbury Earthquakes tribunal” they don’t like it and it’s ironic that head of the ICNZ, Tim Grafton, says in his release today that the tribunal has taken too long for the Labour government to set up. After 7-8 years of having to deal with appalling behaviour and treatment by a number of private insurers, Mr Grafton could be seen as a pot calling the kettle black,” she says.

Ali Jones says the irony continues with ICNZ also stating today that it expects the tribunal to “exercise natural justice and fair procedure” as well as “applying the rules of evidence”.

“So many of us have had our hopes of insurers doing exactly that, dashed again and again over the years so that really does grate,” she says.

One of the very positive parts of the bill, Jones says, is the ability for the tribunal to award general damages against parties as appropriate; for example for mental health, as well as awarding costs against parties if that party causes unreasonable delay during the tribunal process.

“The key words there are “as appropriate” and “unreasonable”; the definitions of those words can vary. I really hope that the mediators are courageous in taking a stand against the terrible delays and behaviour we’re seeing from insurers and the EQC, because significant financial penalties will hit them where it hurts and send a message that treating people like this is not ok,” she says.

ENDS

© Scoop Media