Today, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Karl & Alison Dodds v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd  NZCA 395. The Court of Appeal has upheld the earlier High Court finding that, in presenting the Dodds with information about the value of their insurance settlement, SRESL had made misrepresentations and breached the Fair Trading Act. Consequently, SRESL must pay the Dodds “the difference between the true value of their rights under the policy, and the sum they were persuaded to take in exchange for a surrender of those rights.” For the Dodds, the value of that difference, about $205,000. Their costs will be paid by SRESL.
We are pleased to report that the Supreme Court hearing on 15th and 16th of June 2020 went extremely well.
After the Court of Appeal confirmed that an Opt-Out Notice should issue in this class action, Southern Response appealed to the Supreme Court. Southern Response argued that it would be more appropriate to issue an Opt-In order. Potentially, there could be a significant difference in the size of the class that will finally proceed through the courts with this action.
We are pleased to confirm that the Supreme Court has now scheduled the hearing of the appeal to proceed over two days, Monday 15th and Tuesday 16th of June.
We regret to advise that on Thursday 19 March 2020, the Supreme Court issued a directive confirming that the hearing scheduled to proceed over two days (Monday 23 March 2020 and Tuesday 24 March 2020) will be adjourned.
On 16 September 2019, in a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr and Mrs Ross may bring a class action against Southern Response on an opt-out basis on behalf of all policyholders who have allegedly suffered loss due to Southern Response’s misleading and deceptive conduct.
In a landmark decision this morning, the Court of Appeal has allowed the class action formed by the Rosses to proceed on an opt-out basis.
The High Court of New Zealand has upheld a Christchurch couple's claim that their insurer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and misrepresented their entitlements in processing their earthquake insurance claim.