Southern Response DRA's

LATEST NEWS

$130m in compensation remains unclaimed

Homeowners who cash-settled their claims with AMI or Southern Response before 1 October 2014 were underpaid by about 20 per cent. The average compensation now being paid is approximately $100,000 per claim. Over 1,300 homeowners have not yet claimed their compensation.

Christchurch lawyer Peter Woods, senior partner at Anthony Harper says these homeowners did not get their full entitlement when they cash-settled their claims. 

“They may have been very seriously prejudiced at the time and they are entitled to be compensated for that wrong,” Peter Woods says.

“There is over $130m worth of compensation waiting to be claimed.

If a claimant cash-settled their earthquake damage with Southern Response before 1 October 2014, they are likely to have been underpaid and would be entitled to a further 20 per cent payment from Southern Response, plus interest.

“Some homeowners may be reluctant to revisit their experience with Southern Response, or wary of the compensation offer. We understand this can seem difficult, however our dedicated team are successfully guiding clients through the application process. No direct contact with Southern Response is required, and there is no fee if the homeowner is not eligible for compensation,” he says.

Woods represented Karl and Ali Dodds in the landmark case where both the High Court and Court of Appeal determined Southern Response had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by withholding information when cash-settling their earthquake insurance claim. As a result, Southern Response accepted it was liable to pay approximately 3,000 homeowners a total of $300m compensation.

Anthony Harper represents more than 400 Southern Response homeowners, with compensation paid to date ranging from $65,000 to $425,000, at a total value of $30.5m.

“So many of our clients have told us about the hardship and struggles caused by the earthquakes and how this compensation will change their lives,” Woods says. 

Anthony Harper will advise on the right to claim outside the compensation package, what they are owed under the compensation package, Southern Response’s requirement to sign a new Settlement Agreement, and on the terms of the Agreement.  

"We appreciate that homeowners need to have certainty about legal fees.  After Southern Response's contribution to fees, our fee is $875,” Woods says. 

Anthony Harper has established a dedicated website for homeowners to register for compensation at: www.SouthernResponsePayment.co.nz

Dodds Win Case Against Southern Response

In August 2019, the High Court found Government insurance company Southern Response had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct that misrepresented Karl and Alison Dodds’ insurance entitlements.

The Government will not appeal an earthquake insurance court decision that set a “powerful precedent” for a class action that may involve thousands of other Christchurch homeowners and cost taxpayers more than $400 million.

Read more here

Some people that settled with Southern Response before 23 July 2015 have become aware that prior to settlement Southern Response did not disclose all versions of its Detailed Repair/Rebuild Analysis (DRA).

Southern Response had a practice of maintaining two (2) versions of each DRA. One version did not include all costs that are part of a repair/rebuild cost such as demolition, professional fees and contingency.

Southern Response’s failure to disclose all of the DRA’s and the omitted costs is a breach of its “good faith” obligations. It is also likely a breach of the Fair Trading Act by Southern Response misrepresenting the rebuild or repair cost in the DRA or accompanying letter that then led to the settlement.

Grant Shand is wanting to work with people in this situation, sharing information and knowledge as group, to see if he can fast track their claims.

Case Law

Here is a court judgment in Sadat v EQC & Tower from 6 July 2017 that is a lesson in not over-reaching the facts of the claim. At paras 292 to 298 it contains a useful discussion about under insurance. House was only insured to 85% of its floor area but court did not not apportion all costs based on %, but rather used an elemental approach for items that would be needed no matter what the floor area.