It has been two and a half years since the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and insurance companies say they have made 'significant progress' in resolving Canterbury residential property earthquake claims.
They are now claiming more than 80% have either been "completed, resolved or are scheduled for completion".
According to figures released by the Insurance Council from data collected by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) for progress up until 1 July 2013, insurers are handling about 24,000 claims because they amount to more than the EQC limit.
EQC however has the far bigger task, handling the vast majority of claims, some 147,000.
The data shows that more than a third of the insurance industry claims had been fully resolved through external resolution or were fully completed rebuilds and major repairs.
Almost a half were claims where a repair or rebuild had been agreed and was in progress, they say.
“The insurer rebuild and repairs programme in Christchurch is well and truly ramping up and will be completed by the end of 2016,” said Insurance Council CEO Tim Grafton.
The figures also show that 7,200 (30%) of the 24,400 had been externally resolved, which includes cash settlement and house re-instatements, with an additional 3,100 (13%) external resolutions still to be fully completed. About 4,400 residential property claimants have been offered settlement options but are still undecided on the options presented to them. Some 600 (2%) have yet to receive an offer.
“There are significant issues that are still to be addressed including land settlement, shared properties, the Port Hills review and the speed of building consents,” said Grafton. “But we’re hopeful that these matters can be resolved without any impact on insurers being able to achieve an end of 2016 completion for the residential rebuild and major repairs programme.”
In which box is your claim ?
Even though they are handling only 15% of the total number of claims, the insurers don't expect to complete their work until 2016.
In addition, insurers are dealing with 83,000 claims for things not covered by EQC, and so far only a fifth of these are resolved 2½ years after the February 2011 quake.
5 Comments
What this article does not point out is that Private Insurers "external resolutions" (cash settlements) were all in the Red Zone, where claimants could not repair or rebuild, little to no progress has been made outside of the Red Zone.
Would love to see the Insurance Council's data excluding the Red Zone.
This article is another load of PR dribble from a industry that is struggling to make any progress, let alone significant progress...
You will find that most of the 10,000 plus external resolutions are non red zone. We have had 6 all non red zone. Of those claims all were to purchase existing properties. I suspect about half of the external resolutions were for buying an existing home and the rest cash settled - many for amounts only slightly above EQC payouts. Given the number of house sales in Canterbury were only about 20,000 since the quakes it's conceivable that a good number of the purchases were in other places (all bar one of ours were Auckland).
Many of rebuilds waiting will be red zone.
I can say with certainty that the final graphic is complete rubbish and lies.
The 83000 non Eqc repairs ie driveways etc, appear from this graphic all to have been inspected and they are just waiting to be processed.
What about the claims that have not yet been inspected?
I have two claims that after 2 and a half years still have not had an inspection by IAG. One is a broken driveway in Richmond where liquefaction come up through it. A third was only inspected in the fortnight and I've heard nothing since.
David Chaston, you should ask who ever provided these lies, how many claims have not actually been inspected yet. I find it disgraceful that they haven't inspected mine yet and have chased them repeatedly to little avail.
I am surprised there are only 600 overcap claims with no offer. Because we have two of them!
Also how many severely damaged homes that are in reality overcap have not been handed to the insurer, because I own a riverside property where most of the neighbours are in exactly that situation.
The reality for everyone who doesn't realise already is that most insurers have already weaselled out of full replacement and 600 built homes in 3 years is a disgrace. Many of the rebuilds "in progress" aren't even off the drawing board and will turn into "external resolutions".
The whole situation is a shambles where insureds have had to go to court to get their entitlements and insurers just have to play hardball putting lowball numbers to distressed homeowners.
for example in one IAG claim of mine they have allowed about $270 to lift, reinstall and lay cork tiles in a bathroom with 3 coats of poly. The best quote I have is over 4 times that.
I've seen properties that need double brick side walls and 2 brick chimneys fully taken down and rebuilt, floors relevelled on TC3 and most of the plaster and lathe replaced and the repair price is $116k, just $1000 liability for IAG. In this case the owner couldn't battle with vacant properties and sold them as is with the insurance and the battle going to the new owner.
it's just disgraceful.
Also 600 homes not confirmed over or undercap is bollocks because thousands of TC3 claims are underscoped. Many repair methods are illegal and non complying building work is rife.
Fletchers are also skimping on repairs doing less work than the owners are entitled to under their policies.
Why is this allowed to happen unchecked especially where elderly are bullied into not having full repairs done and corners to be cut, but they are too polite and too tired to make a fuss, like my neighbour who got parts of her stone cladding replaced with plaster because the stone was unavailable. Now the house looks a dog's breakfast and the work looks completely illegal interms of weather tightness and clause E2 of the building code. But nearing 90 she isn't going to make a fuss and I don'twant to upset her either.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.