Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 08 Jun 2016, 11:00 a.m. Agree 0
A Kiwi claims investigator says an epidemic of methamphetamine contaminated homes is just the tip of the iceberg.
  • TN | 09 Jun 2016, 12:01 p.m. Agree 0
    I was just wondering if anyone has any recommendations of who to advise our clients to call when they want to use a tester.
  • Chris | 09 Jun 2016, 12:56 p.m. Agree 0
    A couple of observations:

    1. The article refers to 'manufacture', while it is possible that much contamination in NZ homes results from smoking. Smoking-related contamination could elicit a different policy response.

    2. While insurers could agree that meth contamination isn't 'malicious', the Property Law Act doesn't give the tenant the benefit of any cover when the damage results from imprisonable offences (i.e. not only manufacture but possession/consumption also). In other words, whether or not the landlord has cover for meth-related damage, Holler v Osaki doesn't protect the tenant.
  • Hamish Kerr | 12 Jun 2016, 02:44 p.m. Agree 0
    Hi TN,

    Feel free to email me at and I am happy to provide a list of operators depending on your situation or requirements.
  • TN | 13 Jun 2016, 09:20 a.m. Agree 0
    Thank you Hamish, I will do.
  • P | 14 Oct 2016, 10:26 a.m. Agree 0
    I would suggest a tester that is not aligned to a clean up company, a lot are and its a conflict of interest.
Post a reply