JimmyH: 

Speed the process up, incentivise insurance companies to settle rather than be silly, but minimise the risk of endless dopey expensive litigation.

KiwiNZ: Our insurance has gone up but I prefer to endure that compared to what my kin are going through in Christchurch, they cannot fix their home, they cannot sell there home. Their health has been impacted by the stress etc and their insurance company simply will not budge, they do not have resources to fight the insurance company. There many in this situation, I applaud the Labour initiative.

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ: Our insurance has gone up but I prefer to endure that compared to what my kin are going through in Christchurch, they cannot fix their home, they cannot sell there home. Their health has been impacted by the stress etc and their insurance company simply will not budge, they do not have resources to fight the insurance company. There many in this situation, I applaud the Labour initiative.

My gripe is that a lot of people have made a huge amount of money in Christchurch from the earthquakes. Building costs are higher in Christchurch than anywhere else in NZ, when it should be the reverse, as they should be getting economies of scale on materials. If the rebuild costs were lower, then insurance companies wouldn't need to pay out as much, which would be a saving for the taxpayer at the end of the day. There are apparently enquiries going on about NZs high building product costs, but that is too late. There is no reason why some materials in the US are more than half the price of NZ stuff, when we make it here here. Especially when you have some companies importing material and selling it much cheap than local stuff. Something isn't right.

KiwiNZ:

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ: Our insurance has gone up but I prefer to endure that compared to what my kin are going through in Christchurch, they cannot fix their home, they cannot sell there home. Their health has been impacted by the stress etc and their insurance company simply will not budge, they do not have resources to fight the insurance company. There many in this situation, I applaud the Labour initiative.

My gripe is that a lot of people have made a huge amount of money in Christchurch from the earthquakes. Building costs are higher in Christchurch than anywhere else in NZ, when it should be the reverse, as they should be getting economies of scale on materials. If the rebuild costs were lower, then insurance companies wouldn't need to pay out as much, which would be a saving for the taxpayer at the end of the day. There are apparently enquiries going on about NZs high building product costs, but that is too late. There is no reason why some materials in the US are more than half the price of NZ stuff, when we make it here here. Especially when you have some companies importing material and selling it much cheap than local stuff. Something isn't right.

Most of them are not Cantabrians, Fletchers are making a killing.

As for building costs, it is wrong to make direct comparisons to the US or other countries as we have very different building codes compared to the US, one just has to look at the bracing required in NZ homes compared to the US, UK and Australia for example.

The Government could help by removing a lot of duties and additional taxes from building materials.

JimmyH: [I'm happier with the expert Court idea. If I was doing it I would set up two levels.

ripdog: Really depressing to see rich folk here moaning about insurance premiums when Christchurch citizens are stuck in broken, cold, damp houses for 4 years and counting, after being betrayed by the insurance companies they have loyally paid premiums to for years, and the government they have loyally paid taxes to for decades.

Yes, rebuilding Christchurch is expensive. Yes, we all have to pitch in. In the long run, helping others always comes back to help oneself. It's called social good. That's how we have civilization.

A competition-focused SOE insurance provider will also give a much needed kick in the pants to complacent, established insurance companies too.

KiwiNZ:

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ: Our insurance has gone up but I prefer to endure that compared to what my kin are going through in Christchurch, they cannot fix their home, they cannot sell there home. Their health has been impacted by the stress etc and their insurance company simply will not budge, they do not have resources to fight the insurance company. There many in this situation, I applaud the Labour initiative.

My gripe is that a lot of people have made a huge amount of money in Christchurch from the earthquakes. Building costs are higher in Christchurch than anywhere else in NZ, when it should be the reverse, as they should be getting economies of scale on materials. If the rebuild costs were lower, then insurance companies wouldn't need to pay out as much, which would be a saving for the taxpayer at the end of the day. There are apparently enquiries going on about NZs high building product costs, but that is too late. There is no reason why some materials in the US are more than half the price of NZ stuff, when we make it here here. Especially when you have some companies importing material and selling it much cheap than local stuff. Something isn't right.

Most of them are not Cantabrians, Fletchers are making a killing.

As for building costs, it is wrong to make direct comparisons to the US or other countries as we have very different building codes compared to the US, one just has to look at the bracing required in NZ homes compared to the US, UK and Australia for example.

The Government could help by removing a lot of duties and additional taxes from building materials.

geekiegeek:

Isn't EQC basically a SOE insurance company, hows that working out for you?

geekiegeek: see stuff - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10134984/Labour-promises-quake-court-and-flooding-work

I think the key statement here is "All costs, including lawyers' charges and expert witness fees, would be paid for by the Crown, which would recoup them from the insurance companies and EQC as a levy in proportion to the size of the awards made by the court"

This basically means that everybody's insurance premiums will go up. How much are they expecting this to cost, my guess is they have no idea especially when you are covering lawyer and "expert witness" fees. 

And inst EQC already broke?

Crazy IMO

dman:

geekiegeek: see stuff - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10134984/Labour-promises-quake-court-and-flooding-work

I think the key statement here is "All costs, including lawyers' charges and expert witness fees, would be paid for by the Crown, which would recoup them from the insurance companies and EQC as a levy in proportion to the size of the awards made by the court"

This basically means that everybody's insurance premiums will go up. How much are they expecting this to cost, my guess is they have no idea especially when you are covering lawyer and "expert witness" fees. 

And inst EQC already broke?

Crazy IMO

Nobody, will ever ever ever settle out of court now! Not when you are getting all the costs, on both sides, paid for!

A mind bogglingly stupid idea from Labour, which is going to stuff up the courts with many more cases.