Insurance woes continue for Christchurch

Email
Print

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 7:00p.m.

Rebuilding in Christchurch has been affected by ongoing insurance struggles

Rebuilding in Christchurch has been affected by ongoing insurance struggles

Two steps forward, three steps back – it’s a dance thousands of Christchurch homeowners and businesses find themselves doing following the quakes.

 Leading are the insurance companies, who appear increasingly out of step with public opinion.

Concern is so high that Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee is overseas, trying to convince reinsurers to change their tune.

At stake are the rebuild of Christchurch and the ability of businesses and homeowners to move forward.

Watch the video for the full report from John Selwood

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

19 Sep 2011 07:45a.m.

hummmm wrote:

I would also be worried the number of Private investigators that have not bothered to register with the PSPLA. www.pspla.govt.nz check public register. I guess as insurance companies are one of the biggest users of private investigators. at least one appears to have slipped through the net.

17 Sep 2011 06:36p.m.

John wrote:

Hi Rob, The report you're talking about is what's known as a 'set-up' piece, specifically designed to raise questions that will be answered during an interview which follows. The idea of the story is not to provide balance in itself, but to highlight concerns and raise issues... which are then put to someone who can provide both balance and context answering the questions raised and hopefully taking the story forward. In this case the interview was with Chris Ryan from the Insurance Council. Can I suggest that you look at that interview. Because the quake affects so many thousands of homeowners with varying issues, being specific about each individual case is clearly not possible in one story- asking questions about common concerns and trends is and remember those concerns have been raised by members of the public who trying to sort their lives, not by the media. kind regards John

17 Sep 2011 05:31p.m.

Rob wrote:

Sarndra, thanks for your info regarding the other man with insurance difficulties. But unfortunately that story only deepens the mystery of what is going on here? Why does the man say "that the house will be bulldozed"? Bulldozed by whom? That's the same story with the lady on Campbell, who talked about her house going to be "demolished"? Demolished by whom? I'm in the Red Zone myself & have received all the offical documents, reports & offers relating to my property. I can state factually & unequivically that Nowhere, anywhere does it say that my house will be "Bulldozed" or "demolished" simply because it is in the Red Zone. I have been given 3 options - take the GV value of the property, or take the Land value & deal with my Insurance Co. for the house or option 3 is to accept neither option & just sit tight & wait & see what happens. It does not say that I must leave, because the house will be bulldozed at a certain time? And besides, what right would EQC, CERA or even the Government have, to come & destroy my house that I owned & paid for? Surely that would be an illegal act?

16 Sep 2011 09:09p.m.

edward wrote:

Sarndra is absolutely correct - the insurance companies are doing a lot of things that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with. I have a very legitimate complaint against my insurer (and have proof in writing), however, when I passed it on to the Insurance Ombudsman, I was told that the Ombudsman only exists to facilitate the settlement of claims and does not have any powers to interfere in the internal running of insurance companies. I also discovered that there is no one in NZ overseeing insurance companies. The person I spoke to with the Ombudsman's office was embarrassed to tell me this as said that I clearly have a case. The case Sarndra mentions is just one example and it is obvious that full investigations need to be made as insurance companies presently hold all he cards - they can say when a house is a rebuild or a repair and can hold both up for as long as they see fit. They must see the EQC/CERA as chumps as the Govt end up doing the right thing and coming to the rescue, while the insurers keep minimizing their losses.

16 Sep 2011 05:15p.m.

Sarndra wrote:

Rob It is possible that the women in the news items situation is similar or the same as the one confronting David Haywood who lives in Avonside. See http://publicaddress.net/southerly/tower-insurance-have-some-bad-news-for-you He is with Tower Insurance. He states: "Tower Insurance maintain that the house is not a write-off. They maintain that they are only obliged to repair the house -- not to honour our insurance policy for total replacement. They say that just because we won't be allowed to live on the land, and that the house will be bulldozed, doesn't mean that the house is an insurance write-off. Sorry, they say, but what the government mandates with regard to land is nothing to do with them." Cheers Sarndra

16 Sep 2011 01:33p.m.

Rob wrote:

Absolutely pathetic journalism. As with all these earthquake related reports we yet again get only "half a story". The woman with the damaged house says that her house is "to be demolished" but her insurance co. will only pay for repairs? How can that be? The house is either knackered or its not! It is never explained who told her that the house was to be demolished? EQC? CERA? Building assessor? Does she have a written report detailing the massive extent of the damage? Why not have her insurance co. on, show them the report & ask them to "please explain"! We didn't even hear anything from her insurer or even find out who the insurer was! Part 2 - The man who couldn't get insurance on his new house - again, same question - who is the insurer & get them to please explain! Why did they suddenly "pull the plug" on his insurance? It makes you wonder, as with most of these eartquake sob stories, that there is more to it - that never gets properly explained! A professional journalist would let both sides of the argument explain their piece. Why not resolve the situation for the people & expose any shady dealings that the insurance companies are doing?

15 Sep 2011 09:47a.m.

Heather wrote:

After paying for full replacement insurance for years (with only one claim for a broken window ... bird strike), I expect to get full replacement. It's that simple. I should be able to hire an independent engineer who can either give me the go ahead to build on our land or not. If so, my insurer should give me the go-ahead to rebuild (not wait 10-20 years for my house), or pay me out based on the sq. mtr of my existing home. There is no-where in the Policy that states that my insurer has the right to withhold payment unreasonably. I want to get on with my life as one year is far too long to be paying a mortgage on a house I can't live in, 60% rates for an empty home as well as full insurance on a house that couldn't get any more damaged if it tried. Insurers are holding us to ransom and I'm 'over it'.

14 Sep 2011 09:59p.m.

Sarndra wrote:

My own story... More people need to add their own http://invokinglibitina.blogspot.com/2011/08/insurance-woes.html I am still uninsured. Sarndra