Judgment: Morley v Earthquake Commission

[Full judgment: Morley_v_Earthquake_Commission_and_Harris_v_Earthquake_Commission.pdf]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs (the Morley interests and the Harris interests) seek declarations pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908.

[2] Both sets of plaintiffs owned boarding houses in central Christchurch. All the properties1 were seriously damaged by the Christchurch earthquakes, particularly the February 2011 calamity.

[3] All the boarding houses were subject to fire insurance contracts. In terms of s 18(1) of the Earthquake Commission Act 19932 (the Act) residential buildings were deemed to be insured under the statute against natural disaster by the Earthquake Commission (EQC).

[4] EQC has taken the stance that s 18 insurance does not apply to the boarding houses owned by the Morley and Harris interests. It contends that the boarding houses cannot properly be regarded as residential buildings or dwellings and must fall outside the ambit of natural disaster insurance cover which Parliament contemplated when it enacted the legislation. These proceedings quite properly seek this Court’s guidance on what is essentially a matter of statutory interpretation.

[5] Mr Knight, at the outset of EQC’s submissions, informed the Court that the two proceedings were in the nature of a test case and that approximately 30 boarding house owners in the Canterbury region were in a similar position to the plaintiffs.

...

Result

[68] The Morley interests, as owners of 300, 302, and 304 Gloucester Street, Christchurch were, up to and on 22 February 2011,24 owners of “dwellings” within the meaning of s 2(1) of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 and as such are insured under s 18(1) of the Act.

[69] There is an identical declaration in respect of the Harris interests as owners of 245 Kilmore Street, 265 and 265A Armagh Street.

[Full judgment: Morley_v_Earthquake_Commission_and_Harris_v_Earthquake_Commission.pdf]

© Scoop Media