It’s hard to believe it’s been more than a decade since the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch. For Paul King, who has since moved to Auckland, the memory of his then damaged seven-bedroom two-storey property in Cashmere doesn’t seem to fade – neither does the survivor’s resolve around his supposed $225,000 unpaid compensation.
Referring to the Earthquake Commission (EQC), the information technology and cybersecurity specialist told Insurance Business: “It really bugs me that EQC had about 90 years to prepare for a disaster, and they didn’t. What did they do all those years? We paid the millions and millions and millions of dollars to prepare for a disaster. That was their one job. When it actually came to a disaster, they were unprepared.
“They decided, ‘Oh, we won’t just pay people money; we’ll try and fix their houses’. Well, they couldn’t fix the house, because not only were they not prepared to pay money, they weren’t prepared with any staff to fix anything. Any other business, they would get fired; nobody would put up with it. If you paid for something for years and they didn’t perform, they’d be gone.”
King, who spoke on record and waived his privacy on the matter, asserted that he has nothing to hide and that he has all the paperwork to back him up.
According to the claimant, his previous home insurance policy was made void due to an unrelated tax refund error by the government. King was supposedly faulted for nondisclosure of income (an erroneous tax refund that was received by someone else), which a court accepted he had no awareness of. It was the same tax mistake, said King, that made him lose his original mortgage.
Meanwhile, the claimant cited Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, which states: “The insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.”
In other words, stressed King, he should not have been denied coverage. Additionally, in his view, the EQC part of the policy should have remained intact in any case.
“The insurance company doesn’t cover earthquakes; they (the EQC) do,” he argued. “I don’t care if the insurer cancelled their part of the policy. Regardless, EQC should be covering me for earthquake.”
The Commission, however, when contacted by Insurance Business, declared otherwise.
Bernadette McDougall, EQC acting head of Canterbury claims, noted: “Mr King’s house insurance was avoided ab initio in January 2013 by his private insurer. This means the insurance was treated as if it never existed and all his premiums were repaid. Because there was no insurance for the property, it was also not covered for EQCover under the EQC Act.
“EQC is unable to comment on reasons why the insurance was avoided ab initio by the private insurer, and any questions relating to this decision need to be directed to them.”
As for the premiums refund, King clarified that the sum was not returned to him but to the entity that he used when his mortgage was refinanced.
King, who subsequently met Dame Silvia Cartwright (who chaired the 2018-2020 public inquiry into the EQC) in person, highlighted: “There was an earthquake. I’ve got the policy; you pay – that’s the deal.”
Prior to King’s insurance policy being avoided in 2013, he received $3,633 from EQC in October 2011, with further payments “promised” in 2012. King said he was not asked to return the initial compensation despite him supposedly being considered uninsured at the time.
Meanwhile King, if he could have his way, would love to have the Cashmere property back, which was sold through a mortgagee sale.
“I want my house to be returned to me,” he shared, “the house that I owned for around 15 years. It was almost paid off before their mistake. I want it returned to me, freehold. It’s now valued at $2.5 million. I want my house returned to me and the excess insurance money, plus interest.”
