Southern Response to appeal High Court ruling on precedent-setting case

Thursday, 12 September 2019

Alison and Karl Dodds defeated the Government's quake claims company Southern Response. (First published September 2019)

State-owned Southern Response will appeal a court ruling that found it misled customers – a precedent that could potentially cost the Government millions of dollars.

Last month, the High Court found the Crown-owned earthquake claims company had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when it gave a Christchurch couple a lower assessment of the cost of rebuilding their home.

Karl and Alison Dodds accepted a $895,000 settlement on their quake-damaged Huntsbury house and bought a replacement home. They later discovered Southern Response had withheld a fuller assessment which would have seen them paid about $200,000 more.

Karl and Alison Dodds were misled by Southern Response over a quote for rebuilding their Christchurch home, the High Court found.

The ruling, if it stands, would set a precedent which could benefit an estimated several thousand other homeowners who settled claims based on abridged assessments, or DRAs.

**READ MORE:

Southern Response will appeal the High Court decision from August.

* Southern Response unsure if it will appeal major court decision

* Christchurch couple misled by Southern Response want an apology and inquiry

* Southern Response boss silent as calls for inquiry grow

* Southern Response engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, High Court finds**

Earthquake Commission Minister Grant Robertson has now announced that an appeal will go ahead.

'The Government wants to find a fair and enduring resolution for the outstanding Canterbury earthquake claims. We are committed to doing what is right and ensuring people are paid what they are entitled to,' he said.

'It is our intention that the clarity that will come from the outcome of these proceedings will enable the Crown to work with Southern Response to provide a soundly based proactive solution to those people that are affected.'

Robertson said they wanted more certainty as Justice Gendall's decision had 'left some important unanswered questions'.

'This case is about what happens to historical insurance settlements if the law changes – does Southern Response have a legal obligation to go back in time and pay customers more than they were entitled to at the time their claim was settled?'

Robertson said he had met with the Dodds, and the Crown has offered to pay their legal costs to date and for the upcoming appeal.

Karl Dodds said after the High Court ruling that Southern Response's behaviour had been 'nefarious'.

He said the company had 'a pre-ordained, pre-meditated intention to hide costs, and misrepresent and mislead us.'

They were ordinary people who had worked all their lives and put their savings into a home for their retirement, and that had been taken from them, Dodds said.