Christchurch quake, EQC and insurance: The million dollar question

15 Aug 2011 12:54p.m.

Jamie wrote:

Well it's nice to know that when god gets tired, that we still have compassionate Ken to dish out judgement. Praise Ken

11 Aug 2011 07:25p.m.

ken wrote:

Leonie, I may have been overly blunt and I regret any hurt caused. I have a habit of kurtness. Although I still believe you should have been aware of the insurance issues before putting in commercial tenants I also realise that we all make mistakes and nobody is perfect. In accusing you of being 'in business so you should have known better' that may have been a technically correct line that did not take into account that you are a 'mum and dad' (awful phrase but a useful one.) Perhaps Campbell Live could have focused more on the way insurance companies have jacked up premiums instead of implying that a poor person was being 'ripped off'. Hope you enjoy Perth.

11 Aug 2011 11:17a.m.

leonie wrote:

The problem Ken is that my insurance premiums have now doubled with a commercial policy and if there is another earthquake event next week my new excess is $23K to get my pile of rubble rebuilt. 3 months ago my excess was $200 just like a normal residential home owner. Since when is it best practice to help one business out at the (massive) expense of your own? We wanted to retain a link to the city and help a business to stay in the region thereby contributing in some way to help - not running away as you claim. If I wanted to be a commercial landlord I would have bought a commercial property. We work normal 40 hour jobs, we are mum and dad investors trying to have something when we retire, not the high powered business people that you seem to think. This is our only investment property and will probably be our last as we will now be selling it to reduce our risk. Would you shoot yourself in a vital organ to help someone? As high as your morals might be, I think not. The reason I went on this show is that there are no doubt hundreds of people who have brought their business home to their own house in the short term due to no commercial properties being available. Maybe they have converted the garage into a stock room and a few bedrooms into offices. If they now occupy more than 50% of their own home for business use then they have suddenly got no EQC cover whatsoever if there is another large aftershock in the future. Their insurance company would refuse to cover them as they are no longer entitled to receive the first $100K cover. If you were aware a situation like this existed would you not make it public so that people knew and could take action before something potentially happens? I have written to CERA, MPs, EQC, CCC, Insurance Council of NZ with no response. Thank you for your opinion but you have missed the point in a spectacular way.

09 Aug 2011 08:49a.m.

ken wrote:

The whole story seems to be missing. Some important facts seem to have been omitted. Her vero cover (and eqc cover) still apply to the February quake I presume? The cancellation only applies from when commercial tenants were put in? So where's the problem? If you owned a house next door in that quiet residential street would you want a business next door? Sounds a bit antisocial to me. Running off to Oz and abandoning the ship while others struggle to keep it afloat? Lots of sympathy there no doubt. As a person in business herself then she should have been aware of the insurance issues around a change of use. This is no hard done by old lady struggling to make ends meet-this is a person in business who should have known better. In other words she has nobody to blame but herself. Being dumb is no defence!