AMI Insurance talks Christchurch red zone

Email
Print

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 7:00p.m.

AMI's chief executive John Balmforth

AMI's chief executive John Balmforth

Last night, Campbell Live brought you examples of people with total replacement insurance whose homes are in the red zone, and therefore destined for demolition.

But the trouble is that, unlike some in the red zone, their homes have survived the earthquakes relatively intact.

Their insurers are saying that they will only pay for repairs.

Clearly no one is going to repair a house that will then be demolished; that would be madness.

So people with total replacement insurance are not receiving it, and they are furious.

Yesterday, no insurance companies would talk with Campbell Live.

Tonight, the single biggest insurer in Christchurch, AMI, joined us live.

Watch the Video

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

30 Jun 2011 06:20p.m.

mel wrote:

"The facts are pretty simple. The insurance company is only obliged to pay out for repairs if the house is repairable. Once that cheque is written, the insurance company's involvement ends. If the house is subsequently demolished, that is an action that the insurance company is not party to." The facts may be even more simple Jason. Both house and land were damaged in a disaster. The insurer cannot repair the house due to the extent of the disaster therefore replacement applies. Read David Hayward's comment here: http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3095/?p=217950#post217950 to find that an well known Insurer has today sent an assessor to a house in the red zone, and instructed that assessor to estimate foundation repairs for undamaged ground. Now that is totally farcical - but is an ominous sign of the way Insurers are treating people affected by the earthquake.

29 Jun 2011 08:53p.m.

Jason wrote:

The facts are pretty simple. The insurance company is only obliged to pay out for repairs if the house is repairable. Once that cheque is written, the insurance company's involvement ends. If the house is subsequently demolished, that is an action that the insurance company is not party to.

29 Jun 2011 02:59p.m.

D.M.Hurliman wrote:

Correct me if Im wrong AMI insurance wont be covering these poor people full cover and trying to weasle their way out of a policy which entitles their people to full cover insurance. Doesnt surprise me as we used to be insured with AMI insurance and had our car stolen and was damaged. Our policy cover was to the value agreed on when we insured the car AMI werent happy to pay the agreed price but as our rights they had too. We were questioned by a detective hired by AMI as insurance companies do. No fault to us they had to pay out. A few days later we were phoned by AMI and told that we had to cancel any insurance with them or they would blacklist us and no insurance company would touch us. I believe they did it by phone as a letter would show as proof that they were blackmailing us. As I was upset I said to the AMI lady on the phone that what she was doing was wrong we had done nothing wrong blackmailing us was cruel. She said we are giving you the choice its your choice we are not in the wrong. As We seen it it was a form of blackmail and we had to do it or we would have no insurance. We were being punished because our cover entitlement they did not like but we had been paying insurance for. I feel for the christchurch people who are insured with AMI as our story makes me think what other people out there are being put through the same ordeal. Insurance companies like taking your money but dont like paying out.

29 Jun 2011 02:56p.m.

barrister wrote:

the point is that the gov't stated we will buy the properties in the red zone,that is legally saying we take responsibility for those properties. get your valuations and send to the gov't for payment. they stated they will buy the properties so that means the lot. then insurance must pay the contents insurance. the gov't must then after paying you , demand the house insurance from the company and you have no further claims and get on with life.
there should have been an agreement signed between insurance companies and the gov't so this was a legally binding agreement. gov't have been poorly advised by no agreement having been reached.

29 Jun 2011 12:37p.m.

Kal wrote:

NZ govt. needs to put pressure on to these Insurance companies.
Govt. needs to have very strict rules that can not be manipulated by these Insurance companies, if they want to do the business in NZ, or NZ Govt. should provide Insurance for the houses and the Buildings, it can be done, we pay to the Govt. and they can invest where they would get best return.
These companies have found the loop hole and they will not have to do anything, we as a taxpayer will have to pay for everything..
Why Govt. can not put pressure on to these Insurance companies? why?
I feel sorry for all the people in Red zone who has another issue to deal with..

29 Jun 2011 12:06p.m.

D Mill wrote:

It made me cringe at the way AMi played with money and decided it was time for a rebrand. From a simple strong brand to a fluffy, smiling brand at a huge cost. We changed our insurance from them when we saw that they were spending so much on marketing. i am fully aware you have to spend money to make money however it seemed unnecessary to change the look of a company because you just can....tv adverts, newspaper, magazine, uniforms bascially every medium a customer would come in contact with....I now laugh at their logo not because it makes me feel good/safe but because it has failed in it purpose - they cannot keep their promise and deliver insurance as they should

29 Jun 2011 08:52a.m.

LAJ wrote:

My policy with Vero maxiplan has a clause that says "Authorities Damage- We will pay for damage caused by government or local authorities in order to prevent loss or damage covered by this policy". Surely demolishing the house in the red zone is to prevent loss or damage covered by the policy ie falling down in an earthquake.

29 Jun 2011 08:44a.m.

LAJ wrote:

The problem is insurers don't provide any cover for land, EQC does. EQC provides only enough cover to allow you to build on a minimum section size. There is no cover available to allow you to cover your land for its full value. Redzone people- if you take the value of your replacement cover on your buildings and add it to the value of 450m2 of your land is that more or less than GV because that is your legal entitlement if your home is damaged beyond repair.

29 Jun 2011 07:59a.m.

Brian Gubb wrote:

If the insurance companies are going to play hard-ball within the "RULES", then why don't the affected owners go ahead and get their houses repaired. Then arrange for them to be transported to a new land site? While I'm not an engineer - I would think that the builders could do a reasonable job in preparing a house as they repair it for transport/relocation. Even if they can't, we all know that houses and all sorts of buildings can be moved. This way, the insurance company will meet it's obligation to repair the house, the government covers the land cost (hopefully) and the individual owner may only be out of pocket for the transportation - which is a damn sight cheaper than building from scratch.

29 Jun 2011 07:55a.m.

Brian Gubb wrote:

Why don't the affected owners go ahead and get their houses repaired - but then arrange for them to be transported to a new land site? While I'm not an engineer - I would think that the builders could do a reasonable job in preparing it for transport/relocation while they repair it. Even if they can't, we all know that houses and all sorts of buildings can be moved. This way, the insurance company will meet it's obligation to repair the house, the government covers the land cost (hopefully) and the individual owner may only be out of pocket for the transportation - which is a damn sight cheaper than building from scratch.