Insurance Council in quake court win

MICHAEL WRIGHT
Last updated 15:33 05/02/2013

Relevant offers

The Rebuild

Canterbury earthquake repair issues increasing for insurance ombudsman Otakaro Orchard needs to raise another $28,000 in seven days Community wants red zone developments to be safe and protect the natural environment Christchurch architect awarded $188,000 in costs for house rebuild case Crown to sell old Inland Revenue building in east frame for development Christchurch City Council's Cranford Basin plan picking up steam, heads for feedback Christchurch City Council owes Crown up to $39 million over Port Hills buyout deal How much of the red zone needs to go green to support native birds? Christchurch politicians concur: An Accessible City plan should change Central city group in Christchurch needs cash and ideas

The High Court has upheld an application by the insurance industry to prevent stricter building standards being imposed on the owners of earthquake-damaged Christchurch buildings.

The Insurance Council sought to overturn the Christchurch City Council's 2010 policy on quake-prone buildings, which lifted the minimum seismic strength from 33 per cent of the new building standard (NBS) to a target of 67 per cent, through judicial review.

It claimed the move, decided just days after the September 4, 2010, quake, was slowing Christchurch's rebuild through consenting delays and passing extra costs to building owners and their insurers.

In a judgment released today, Justice Panckhurst found in favour of the Insurance Council.

"Territorial authorities may not use section 124 notices [of the Building Act, which prohibits entry to dangerous buildings unless made safe] to advance a policy of increasing building capacity to a level above 34 per cent of the NBS,'' it said.

"The primary focus in requiring work on earthquake-prone buildings is upon managing the likely risk of collapse causing injury or death."

Insurance Council insurance manager John Lucas had said the policy could see insurance premiums "skyrocketing", especially in the main centres.

Buildings above the 33 per cent standard were, under the Building Act, not quake-prone or a threat to life, he said.

"People just can't adapt to that straight away and insurers were already liable for repairing lots of damaged buildings. They thought their liability was to the 34 per cent."

Insurers were being asked to "future-proof" buildings beyond their contracted responsibility, Lucas said.

"Quite simply, the insurers can't do that. We only repair what is damaged," he said.

Ad Feedback

- The Press

Comments

Special offers
Opinion poll

Is it worth spending extra to repair heritage buildings?

Yes, Christchurch needs to invest in its heritage buildings

No, we should embrace modern design if it is cheaper and quicker

Only some heritage buildings are worth the money

Vote Result

Related story: Landmark church nearly $1m short

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content