Background

Why is Southern Response liable?

Dodds v Southern Response

Southern Response was set up by the Government when insurer AMI failed in 2012, to settle outstanding claims from policy holders.

In August 2019, the High Court found Southern Response had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. Peter Woods of Anthony Harper, acting for Karl and Alison Dodds, established that Southern Response had misrepresented their insurance entitlements (Dodds v Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited [2019] NZHC 2016).

The insurer had produced two differing detailed repair/rebuild assessments, or DRAs, which scoped the costs of rebuilding or repairing their home. However, Southern Response only showed the Dodds one DRA which did not include some costs they were entitled to under their insurance policy.

The Government appealed to the Court of Appeal, saying it needed legal clarity because of the thousands of other Southern Response claimants in a similar position. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in September 2020 (Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Dodds [2020] NZCA 395).

Southern Response has accepted the findings of the Court of Appeal and the Government’s decision not to appeal that judgment.

The Dodds’ case has opened the way to rectify thousands of similar Southern Response claims.

Judgments allow Southern Response to pay $300m compensation directly to Canterbury homeowners

High Court judgments released on 20 September have confirmed Southern Response can now directly contact 3,000 Canterbury homeowners about $300 million compensation owed to them.