DOCSLIB.ORG

LEE & ORS V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2626

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LEE & ORS V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2016-409-764 [2017] NZHC 2626 BETWEEN SHUM OI LEE First Plaintiff SHUM OI LEE, SHIRLEY LEE and ANDREW LEE Second Plaintiffs AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 25 and 26 July 2017 Appearances: P A Cowey and A J Summerlee for Plaintiffs R W Raymond QC and D Weatherly for Defendant Judgment: 26 October 2017 JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO TRIAL) A. INTRODUCTION [1] This judgment addresses the application of an insurance policy following earthquake damage to a three storey commercial building in Christchurch. The main element of the building, made of clay brick unreinforced masonry, was built in about 1880. LEE & ORS v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2626 [26 October 2017] [2] The building was damaged by the magnitude 7.1 Canterbury earthquake on 4 September 2010. The more destructive magnitude 6.3 earthquake on 22 February 2011 caused separate and distinct damage, and the building was demolished in November 2011. [3] The plaintiffs say that they intend to reinstate the building, the first plaintiff having resettled the ownership trust in the names of the second plaintiffs, and assigned rights under the insurance policy with the defendant insurer, IAG New Zealand Limited (“IAG”). IAG’s response [4] IAG made payments of $41,388 (excluding GST) for the 4 September 2010 event and $67,773 (excluding GST) for the 22 February 2011 event. In January 2013, IAG paid the first plaintiff $585,000 (excluding GST), which the insurer calculated as the market indemnity value of the building of $600,000 (excluding GST), less the policy excess of 2.5 per cent. On 12 November 2014, IAG offered to pay the first plaintiff the further sum of $752,589 (excluding GST) in full settlement as an offer outside the policy wording, calculated on the basis of a single sum, rather than adjusting for each event. [5] IAG had not been told of resettlement of the first plaintiff in the names of the second plaintiffs on 23 April 2014, with assignment of rights under the insurance contract. Had the offer been accepted the total payout would amount to the Sum Insured for earthquake damage, of $1,499,000 (excluding GST), nett of excess. B. THE POLICY [6] IAG agreed to insure the first plaintiff for loss of or damage to business assets including buildings, for commercial use only. [7] Clause C1 provides: This insurance will pay the amount of loss or damage or the estimated cost of restoring your business assets as nearly as possible to the same condition they were in immediately before the loss or damage happened, using current materials and methods. [8] Clause C2 provides: Where replacement covers has been selected (shown as R in the schedule) and following loss or damage you restore or replace the lost or damaged business assets this insurance will pay: a. For buildings (i) where repairable, the cost of restoration of damage to the same condition when new, or (ii) if unable to be repaired because of such damage, the cost of replacement by an equivalent building which meets your requirements at any site provided State shall not pay more than the cost of replacement at the site stated in the schedule. Such restoration will use current materials and methods and include the cost of changes to meet the lawful requirements of any local authority or statute but not for work you have already been instructed to do prior to the loss or damage. … C. THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS [9] The Court has been asked to address two preliminary questions: (1) Question 1 is drawn from Clause C1: How is “the estimated cost of restoring your business assets as nearly as possible to the same condition they were in immediately before the loss or damage happened using current materials and methods” to be calculated? (2) Question 2 relates to “Consequences of delay in payment”: (a) If there has been a delay in making a payment due under the policy pursuant to Clause C1, is the defendant liable to pay interest as a result of the delay? (b) If the answer to (a), above, is yes, is interest to be calculated from: (i) The accrual of the cause of action; or (ii) The date when the payment obligation could reasonably have been estimated; or (iii) Some other date determined at the preliminary hearing; or (iv) Some other date to be determined at trial. [10] While this judgment does not determine the application of interest to any sum payable by the insurer, if interest is payable then the answer to Question 2(b) is (iv), as I agree with Mr Raymond QC for IAG that this should only be addressed at trial. There are guiding principles, and insurance practice is relevant to the application of interest. These principles have been developed by the courts, some of specialist jurisdiction, in New Zealand and elsewhere. The application of interest will reflect these principles always with an eye to the facts of the case and the insurance contract in question. I will make some observations about interest having regard to the submissions of counsel so their commendable enterprise may be reflected. The question of interest is of important general application. D. QUESTION 1 The competing positions [11] The plaintiffs say that Clause C1 creates an obligation on IAG to pay a “provisional” or “default” sum so they can commence reinstatement work. This Judgment will refer to a “provisional” sum or payment. They say that “top-up” cover is available under Clause C2 to reimburse the actual costs of replacement by an equivalent building, described as restoration using current materials and methods under Clause C2(a)(ii). [12] If that proposition is correct, IAG must make a “provisional” payment, being the estimated cost to restore the building as nearly as possible to its pre-earthquake condition using current materials and methods. That is not the cost of restoration to the same condition when new, nor to comply with the lawful requirements of (in this case) the Christchurch City Council or any statute. [13] Mr Cowey, for the plaintiffs, says that the estimated provisional sum should make no deduction for “wear and tear” because it is a provisional payment towards restoring the building “as nearly as possible” to its pre-earthquake condition. However, if the Court finds that the contract requires the age of the damaged assets to be reflected in the provisional sum, he submits that should be calculated only by reference to recycled materials, for example using “old bricks”. [14] Mr Raymond says the insurer’s obligations are founded on the necessary repairs when they are determined, then the life expectancy of the various components must be brought to account to produce a depreciated repair cost, which IAG calculates at 77.63 per cent, over all components of the building. By using the plaintiffs’ scope of works (as to which IAG reserves its position), the difference between the parties in the estimated costs for each event is reflected in the following table: Plaintiffs Defendant (IAG) September 2010 $1,499,000 (limited by the $439,774.46 Sum Insured) February 2011 $1,182.500 $301,083.14 [15] The practical position is that if the plaintiffs restore the property, subject to any other terms, the cover under Clause C2 will be calculated as the difference between the Sum Insured and the applicable Clause C1 calculation for the February 2011 event. The Clause C2 entitlement is limited, so the total sum paid by IAG under Clauses C1 and C2 will not exceed the cost to replace the insured property to the Clause C2 policy standard. Discussion [16] Mr Cowey says that the policy provides “new for old” replacement cover, which is different from “old for old” cover, being restoration to the pre-event condition. He refers to authority that betterment applies if there is an assumption that old materials would be used.1 Betterment will be reflected when something new replaces something old, but Mr Cowey submits that it only applies in the context of an insurance contract which does not expressly provide for replacement. Here, the policy does so under Clause C2, so the plaintiffs were entitled to receive something “new for old”. [17] Mr Cowey’s construction of the Clause C1 payment is thus based on this proposition, that the insurer must make an “agreed initial default payment” because the policy provides for “replacement”.2 He says two tranches of payment are contemplated, the first being a provisional payment upon the activating occurrence or event.3 That is based on the intention of the insured to reinstate, which triggers “the estimated cost of restoring your business assets”, as opposed to “loss” or “damage” under Clause C1. [18] The effect of the construction of the contract in this way is that a provisional sum is paid “so that the insured actually has funds to begin reinstatement”. Mr Cowey says this is what should be taken as intended under the policy. The provisional Clause C1 payment assessed in this way will likely leave a shortfall when the building is constructed to an “as new” standard, so the top-up C2 payment is made after those costs are incurred and known.4 [19] Mr Cowey recognises the vagaries of this submission when put into practice. Because his submission is that the Clause C1 obligation is an “estimate” triggered by the (necessary) intent of the insured to restore the building, this interpretation must encompass a change of mind by the insured, or for some other reason there is no restoration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Briefing for the Purposes of the Inquiry
    INITIAL BRIEFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INQUIRY - History of the Earthquake Commission 26 October 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 1929 – 2009 1 Government response to the 1929 and 1931 earthquakes 1 Earthquake and War Damage Act 1944 2 Review and reform of the 1944 Act 3 Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (EQC Act) 3 Preparedness following the EQC Act 4 EQC claims mostly cash settled 5 Crown Entities Act 2004 6 2010 6 Position prior to the first Canterbury earthquake 6 4 September 2010 earthquake 7 Residential building claims 7 Residential land 8 Progress with Canterbury claims 8 Managing liabilities 9 EQC’s role 10 2011 10 Cyclone Wilma 10 22 February 2011 earthquake 10 EQC’s additional roles 11 Rapid Assessment 11 Emergency repairs 12 13 June 2011 earthquake 12 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - Zoning and Crown offers 13 Additional land remediation 13 High Court Declaratory Judgment – Reinstatement of cover 13 Progress with Canterbury claims 13 New Technical Categories (TC1, TC2 and TC3) 14 Relationship with private insurers 14 Staff and contractors 15 23 December 2011 earthquake 15 Residential land claims 15 Statement of Intent 2011-14 16 Reviews of EQC 16 2012 17 Progress with Canterbury claims 17 Canterbury Earthquake (Earthquake Commission Act) Order 2012 18 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by Canterbury Earthquakes 19 Unclaimed damage – Ministerial Direction 19 Nelson floods 19 Residential land damage 19 Managing liabilities 20 Reviews of EQC 20 Review of EQC’s 2012 Christchurch Recruitment Processes
    [Show full text]
  • Nzhc 2956 Between Gregory Peter Young and Mall
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2015-409-000222 [2016] NZHC 2956 BETWEEN GREGORY PETER YOUNG AND MALLEY & CO TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE MCARA YOUNG TRUST Plaintiffs AND TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 29 August-2 September, 5-9 September & 14 October 2016 Appearances: P F Whiteside QC and H T Shaw for Plaintiffs M C Harris and ATB Joseph for Defendant Judgment: 7 December 2016 JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J YOUNG v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2956 [7 December 2016] Table of Contents Para No Introduction [1] Factual background [4] Mr Sinclair instructed [31] The Policy [41] Approach to interpreting the policy [43] The plaintiffs’ claims [47] The defendant’s response [48] Issues [50] What is the extent of earthquake caused damage? [50] Is Tower’s repair strategy commonly used at the time of loss or damage? [54] (a) What is the repair method/strategy proposed by the defendant? [55] (b) Is the repair strategy proposed a construction method commonly used [68] at the time of the earthquakes? In the alternative, if the repair strategy is one commonly used, is the [82] damage economically repairable? (a) Will the proposed repair strategy work and return the house to an as [83] new condition? (b) The economic viability of the repair strategy? [100] Has Tower made an election to cash settle the plaintiffs’ claim? [122] Rebuild cost? [129] General and exemplary damages claim [145] Exemplary damages [147] General damages [151] Relief sought [178] Result [186] Costs [190] Introduction [1] This is a claim brought by the plaintiffs who have a residential property on the Christchurch hills insured through Tower Insurance Limited, the defendant company, which was significantly damaged as a result of the Canterbury earthquake sequence in 2010 and 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination
    ISSN no. 0114‐2720 Project no. 11.04/13293 Public version Determination Re IAG (NZ) Holdings Limited and AMI Insurance (Operations) Limited [2012] NZCC 6. The Commission: Dr Mark Berry Sue Begg Anita Mazzoleni Summary of application: The application by IAG (NZ) Holdings Limited to acquire certain business assets of AMI (being all assets related to AMI’s current insurance business excluding AMI’s Canterbury earthquake liabilities), through subscription to 100% of the shares in a newly created company, AMI Insurance (Operations) Limited. Determination: Pursuant to s 66(3)(a) of the Commerce Act 1986, the Commission determines to give clearance for IAG (NZ) Holdings Limited to acquire certain business assets of AMI (being all assets related to AMI’s current insurance business excluding AMI’s Canterbury earthquake liabilities), through subscription to 100% of the shares in a newly created company, AMI Insurance (Operations) Limited. Date of determination: 29 February 2012 1338891.1 2 Confidential material in this report has been removed. Its location in the document is denoted by [ ]. 1338891.1 3 The proposal 1. A notice under s 66(1) of the Commerce Act 1986 (the Act) was registered on 20 December 2011. The Notice sought clearance for IAG (NZ) Holdings Limited (IAG or the Applicant) to acquire certain business assets of AMI (being all assets related to AMI’s current insurance business excluding AMI’s Canterbury earthquake liabilities), through subscription to 100% of the shares in a newly created company, AMI Insurance (Operations) Limited (AMI Newco). The decision 2. The Commission considers that the markets relevant to its consideration of this application are: 2.1 The national market for domestic house and contents insurance; 2.2 The national market for domestic motor vehicle insurance; 2.3 The national market for the provision of windscreen repair services; and 2.4 The national market for the provision of collision repair services.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Law and the Principle of Indemnity in Light of Ridgecrest Nz Ltd V Iag New Zealand Ltd
    73 INSURANCE LAW AND THE PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY IN LIGHT OF RIDGECREST NZ LTD V IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD Kasia Ginders* When the Supreme Court discussed the principle of indemnity in Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd, it was referred to as "awkward" in the context of a replacement policy. The application of the indemnity principle in the case raises further questions about the nature of the principle in insurance contracts. It is submitted that the indemnity principle is currently enforceable not as a legal test nor as a policy-based presumption; rather, it is applicable mostly because it is presumed the parties intended it to apply. This conclusion draws on both consideration of the rationales and rules of, exceptions to, and law reform concerning the principle. It also draws on analysis of the principle in light of Ridgecrest and two other recent cases following the Christchurch earthquakes that deal with the principle of indemnity. I INTRODUCTION The principle of indemnity in insurance law holds that an insured is entitled to receive a full indemnity for his or her loss, no more and no less. However, Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd (Ridgecrest), a 2014 case in the New Zealand Supreme Court, has brought the nature of the principle into question. When an insured building owned by Ridgecrest NZ Ltd (Ridgecrest) sustained damage in successive Canterbury earthquakes, the Supreme Court held that Ridgecrest could claim up to the full amount of the sum insured per happening, despite being underinsured and not having repaired the damage from the earlier quakes when the insured building became a total loss.
    [Show full text]
  • Iag New Zealand Limited
    23 April 2013 ABN 60 090 739 923 IAG IN FOCUS NEW ZEALAND IMPORTANT INFORMATION This presentation contains general information in summary form which is current as at 23 April 2013. It presents financial information on both a statutory basis (which has been prepared in accordance with Australian accounting standards, which comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)) and non-IFRS basis. This presentation is not a recommendation or advice in relation to Insurance Australia Group Limited (“IAG”) or any product or service offered by IAG’s subsidiaries. It is not intended to be relied upon as advice to investors or potential investors, and does not contain all information relevant or necessary for an investment decision. It should be read in conjunction with IAG’s other periodic and continuous disclosure announcements filed with the Australian Securities Exchange which are also available at www.iag.com.au. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, adequacy or reliability of any statements, estimates or opinions or other information contained in this presentation. To the maximum extent permitted by law, IAG, its subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents disclaim all liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by any recipient through use of or reliance on anything contained in or omitted from this presentation. No recommendation is made as to how investors should make an investment decision. Investors must rely on their own examination of IAG, including the merits and risks involved. Investors should consult with their own professional advisors in connection with any acquisition of securities.
    [Show full text]
  • Its Application to the Commerce Commission Here
    Commerce Act 1986: Business Acquisition Section 66: Notice Seeking Clearance All confidential information included in [square brackets and highlighted]. Date: 19 December 2011 The Registrar Market Structure Team Commerce Commission PO Box 2351 Wellington By email: [email protected] Pursuant to section 66(1) of the Commerce Act 1986 notice is hereby given seeking clearance of a proposed business acquisition. PUBLIC VERSION 2 Contents Summary 3 Part 1 Transaction Details 5 Part 2 The Industry 8 Part 3 Market Definition 14 Part 4 Counterfactual 19 Part 5 Competition Analysis 20 Part 6 Further Information and Supporting Documentation 39 Part 7 Confidentiality 42 Annexure 1 – IAG structure chart 44 Annexure 2 – Sale and Purchase Agreement [Confidential Annexure] 45 Annexure 3 – Subscription Agreement [Confidential Annexure] 46 Annexure 4 – Deed of Undertaking [Confidential Annexure] 47 Annexure 5 – Claims Management Services Supply Agreement [Confidential Annexure] 48 Annexure 6 – Licensing Deed [Confidential Annexure] 49 Annexure 7 – Average premium pricing [Confidential Annexure] 50 Annexure 8 – Market share estimates [Confidential Annexure] 51 Annexure 9 – www.consumer.org.nz screenshots 53 Annexure 10 – Reserve Bank risk management guidelines 56 Annexure 11 – Reserve Bank solvency standard 57 Annexure 12 – Screenshots from Insure Me 58 Annexure 13 – IAG’s annual report 59 Annexure 14 – AMI’s annual report 60 Annexure 15 – Schedule of confidential information [Confidential Annexure] 61 3 Summary This is a notice seeking clearance for a proposed acquisition that will result in IAG New Zealand Limited (IAG) and certain of AMI Insurance New Zealand Limited’s (AMI) insurance businesses coming under common ownership. IAG (NZ) Holdings Limited (the Applicant) is of the view that the proposed acquisition will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in any market.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Australia Group Limited. ANNUAL REVIEW 2008
    THE FACTS: IN BLACK & WHITE. ANNUal REVIEW 2008 Insurance Australia Group Limited ABN 60 090 739 923 2008: THE RESULTS. $7.8b 6.1% $261m 22.5cps GROSS WRITTEN PREMIUM INSURANCE MARGIN NET LOSS AFTER TAX TOTAL DIVIDENDS A 5.6% increase from the Down from last year’s 11.4%. A decrease from last year’s Comprises an interim previous year. Insurance margin represents $552m profit. dividend of 13.5 cents per Gross written premium our insurance profit as a The net result after allowing for ordinary share (cps) and (GWP) is the total amount of percentage of net earned income taxes and the share a final dividend of 9cps, insurance premiums we sold premium. of profit owing to minority fully franked. to customers. shareholders. Dividends are payments made to holders of IAG’s ordinary shares. 61% 84 $12m 61,217t EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION COMMUNITY INVESTMENT CO2 EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS Remained level with the Up from 83 last year. Remained level with the A 2.2% improvement from previous year. This is an index score of previous year. the previous year. This is a measure of our customer satisfaction across This is our total investment This is a measure of IAG’s CO2 Australian employees’ claims and sales and service (including sponsorships, equivalent (CO2e) emissions engagement drawn from in our largest business, promotion, administration, in Australia and New Zealand our annual employee survey. Australian direct insurance. donations and employee (NZ) through, for example, volunteer hours) across the electricity use and paper community
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Australia Group (IAG) - Master Privacy Policy
    Last Update: 23 June 2021 Insurance Australia Group (IAG) - Master Privacy Policy Jump to the section you want by clicking on the image shortcuts below: Who are we? What personal information do How do we use your personal we collect? information? Who do we share your Significant data sharing Want to contact us? personal information with? arrangements Includes access requests, correcting your information and complaints. What is a master privacy policy? As with other large organisations, there are certain activities which we perform across Our Businesses (listed in Appendix A) and Our Companies (listed in Appendix B) (IAG Group Activities), in addition to the individual activities of each business (Business Specific Activities). In addition to the privacy policies that apply to Business Specific Activities, this Master Privacy Policy applies to: • any personal information we handle as part of the IAG Group Activities; and • any other personal information we handle that is not otherwise covered by the privacy policies for the Business Specific Activities. As such, if you are an individual whose personal information is handled by one of Our Businesses, or you otherwise interact with one of Our Businesses, this Master Privacy Policy should be read in conjunction with the privacy policy for the relevant Business Specific Activities. For example: if you are an NRMA Insurance customer, you should read the NRMA Insurance privacy policy first, as that will be most relevant to you, and then read this Master Privacy Policy. Whilst we’ve tried to ensure this doesn’t occur, if the information in this Master Privacy Policy conflicts with information in any of the privacy policies for any Business Specific Activities, the information in the relevant privacy policy for the Business Specific Activities will override this Master Privacy Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • IAG Submission to Proposed Changes to the Earthquake Commission Act
    The Treasury Earthquake Commission (EQC) Act Review Submissions Information Release Release Document January 2018 www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/eqc/submissions Key to sections of the Official Information Act 1982 under which information has been withheld. Certain information in this document has been withheld under one or more of the following sections of the Official Information Act, as applicable: [1] 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons, including deceased people; [2] 9(2)(b)(ii) - to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information. Where information has been withheld, a numbered reference to the applicable section of the Official Information Act has been made, as listed above. For example, a [2] appearing where information has been withheld in a release document refers to section 9(2)(b)(ii). In preparing this Information Release, the Treasury has considered the public interest considerations in section 9(1) of the Official Information Act. IAG Submission on New Zealand’s Future Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme Proposed changes to the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 11 September 2015 1. Introduction 1.1 This submission is a response by IAG New Zealand Group (IAG) to the New Zealand Treasury’s discussion document “New Zealand’s Future Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme: Proposed changes to the Earthquake Commission Act.” 1.2 IAG welcomes the opportunity to work with the government on developing a framework for natural disaster insurance that maintains the ability of New Zealanders to access affordable, effective natural disaster insurance and improves their claims process.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEAL of NEW ZEALAND CA371/2016 [2017] NZCA 321 BETWEEN AMI INSURANCE LIMITED Appellant and ROSS JOHN LEGG
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA371/2016 [2017] NZCA 321 BETWEEN AMI INSURANCE LIMITED Appellant AND ROSS JOHN LEGG AND ANNETTE JILL LEGG First Respondents NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION Second Respondent SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL Third Respondent EVOLVING LANDSCAPES LIMITED Fourth Respondent LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED Fifth Respondent Hearing: 13 June 2017 Court: Miller, Cooper and Clifford JJ Counsel: M G Ring QC, I J Thain and S R Merkin for Appellant A N Riches and T E Hutchinson for First Respondents No appearance for Second to Fifth Respondents Judgment: 26 July 2017 at 3.00 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is entered for AMI. AMI INSURANCE LTD v LEGG & OTHERS [2017] NZCA 321 [26 July 2017] B The first respondents must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. C Costs in the High Court are to be determined in that Court in light of this judgment. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Miller J) TABLE OF CONTENTS Background [5] The policies [14] The AMI policy [15] The Lumley policy [18] The appeal [21] Connection between legal liability and excluded business activity [22] Does “arising from” qualify “in connection with”? [23] “In connection with” [25] “In connection with”, in context [32] Was the necessary connection between legal liability and excluded activity established on the facts? [39] Does it matter that the fire commingled insured and excluded activities? [45] Decision [55] [1] The phrase “in connection with” occurred twice in the Leggs’ policy of insurance for their lifestyle block: once to extend cover to damage “arising from or in connection with” farming activities, and once to exclude it for damage “arising out of or in connection with” any other business.
    [Show full text]
  • IAG NZ and Mike Henry Travel Insurance
    Public Version ISSN NO. 0114-2720 J6515 Commerce Commission Decision No. 526 Determination pursuant to the Commerce Act 1986 in the matter of an application for clearance of a business acquisition involving: IAG NZ LIMITED and MIKE HENRY TRAVEL INSURANCE The Commission: David Caygill Peter J M Taylor Summary of Application: The acquisition by IAG NZ of 100% of the shares in Mike Henry Travel Insurance Limited (“MHTI”) Determination: Pursuant to section 66(3) (a) of the Commerce Act 1986, the Commission determines to give clearance for the proposed acquisition. Date of Determination: 24th June 2004 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL IN THIS REPORT IS CONTAINED IN SQUARE BRACKETS i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 1 THE PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 MARKET DEFINITION.............................................................................................................................................. 1 COUNTERFACTUAL................................................................................................................................................. 1 COMPETITION ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 1 OVERALL CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Determination
    ISSN 1178–2560 Decision Series Project no. 11.04/16369 Public version Determination Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited and Tower Limited [2017] NZCC 18 The Commission: Dr Mark Berry Sue Begg Graham Crombie Summary of application: An application from Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited seeking clearance to acquire up to 100% of the remaining ordinary shares in Tower Limited by way of a scheme of arrangement under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993. Determination: Under section 66(3)(b) of the Commerce Act 1986, the Commerce Commission declines to give clearance to the proposed merger. Date of determination: 25 July 2017 2959187 2 Confidential material in this report has been removed. Its location in the document is denoted by [ ]. 2959187 3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................5 THE PROPOSED MERGER .............................................................................................................6 Summary of the proposed merger ................................................................................................ 6 Applicant’s rationale for the merger ............................................................................................. 6 Our decision .................................................................................................................................. 6 OUR FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]