Rimu floors and the rebuild

Our neighbour has had the insurance company put down a rimu floor. That must have cost a bomb. I wonder how many people missed out?

bandit303, Sep 1, 6:54 pm

Good on them!

jambee1, Sep 1, 7:33 pm

Great, there should have been plenty of rimu timber available following demolition.

annies3, Sep 1, 8:15 pm


EQC and the Insurance have to replace like for like. UNLESS the floor had carpet over it and then EQC could put down strand board or 18mm ply as the Rimu was "Hidden" so under their rules as long as the product replacing the Rimu met the building code it could be used.
There was also a court ruling that any native timber used either externally or internally as long as it was clear coated to see the timber, had to also be replaced Like for Like. But if the native timber was painted then once again as long as the product used to replace it met the building code it could be used.

corkranb, Sep 1, 9:00 pm

And so they should. If the floors were exposed rimu at the time of the earthquake, like corkranb said, like for like is what insurance companies have to do.

tahnasha, Sep 1, 9:19 pm

Our insurance replaced our copper guttering with copper after it got damaged in the snowfall. Unfortunately the contractors didn't solder the joints, but used RTV and it leaks in places. I guess they didn't know.

tygertung, Sep 2, 6:53 am



That was worth knowing. I wonder if everyone knew.

bandit303, Sep 2, 9:08 pm

It was pretty widely discussed on this message board.

supersapper, Sep 2, 10:00 pm



Great then so evryone will be happy

bandit303, Sep 3, 8:07 am



That's a bit of a stretch?
Most people who sought out info found some answers. Some fought on, some didn't. Some were sort of happy, some were not. Applies to most quake issues.

david_270, Sep 3, 6:00 pm

I missed out on a new floor entirely. apparently the damage was historical. Funny, the floorboards weren't like a railway track before the EQ.

moodybleu, Sep 3, 6:28 pm

If Adrian Cowie is right , having rimu replaced shouldn't be entering the equation .
How many 10's of thousands of houses should be rebuilt , or at least full foundation rebuilds ?

Building Settlement - Settling Insurance Claims.

It appears that IAG's view is that any building settlement in the 50 year flood plain can be totally ignored, so that a standard of "when new" does not apply to this type of building damage.

IAG have stated they have had a legal opinion verifying this. I have requested a copy of this opinion from IAG management, as I think it would be good to have clarity on this matter and to understand the basis of their view. At the moment I am discussing this with Loss Adjusters who say it is only Land Damage, but when questioned, they haven't heard of a thing called a Declaratory Judgment, nor MBIE Determination 2014/058, nor Rout v Southern Response.

At present, and as has been my opinion from 2010, is that building settlement needs to be carefully assessed, and assessed in regards to the terms of the policy, which may require the building as a whole to be lifted back up to either it's original height, or the current Interim Floor Level (and possibly the higher of the two - and also possibly with the same margin it had originally).

If you are currently working out settlement details with IAG (or any other Insurer) my opinion would be to make sure the issue of building settlement has been dealt with in detail.

It is my experience that few advisors and solicitors understand the issue of floodplains, minimum site and floor levels, etc - quite often telling clients that it is Land Damage only. If you are in this situation, I would consider changing advisor/solicitor as there is a clear demarcation between building and land damage. If you are concerned, then you at least need to have the facts on the table (that is, how much it has settled, where the minimum level is, what your policy terms are, etc).

Note that if you build a new building now, it would be basically impossible to build below the Interim Floor Level. The question therefore is whether the standard of "when new" or "as new" means what is says in terms of the floor level of the house.

I am of the firm view that ALL damage needs to be assessed accurately and completely, with this damage then viewed in light of the policy terms, so that a compliant reinstatement in accordance with the terms of the contract can be determined.

Why is this so serious? Because if your home is below the 50 Year Interim Floor Level insurance cover may well be compromised.

I will report back hopefully next week when I have a copy of the legal opinion.

(There are 45,000 homes out there that need to read this - hence my carping and moaning about it).

golfaholic2, Sep 3, 8:56 pm



Snip Snip

Excellent post.
That is the danger of the new Hazardous Inundation zones that the council is trying to rush through to suit CERA and Brownlies time frames. Many of the homes in the new flood zones are a direct result of the earthquakes. the property around Farnborough Street has sunk 500mm on average and is now in the new level 1 inundation zone. Many people just keep hearing the term Coastal flooding but anywhere the rivers or Estuaries flow is in danger of flooding. The new hazardous Inundation zones go all the way through to Jade Stadium. Get your submissions in before the 4 weeks is up. Go to ccru.co.nz for more information.

corkranb, Sep 4, 7:15 am



Here is a direct link fr an online submission form that sends your submission directly to the council
http://178.62.5.204/submissions/new?base_form=in_zone_default

corkranb, Sep 4, 7:56 am



Correct - the case you are referring to is Parkin v Vero.

At its core it determined that 'components' can either be aesthetic or functional (on a sliding scale).

Components which are hidden from view (such as carpeted floorboards) only serve a structural purpose, and provided they are replaced to the same function (i.e you can lay carpet on them and walk) then replacement is with currently used materials.

Equally, something that serves a purely aesthetic purpose (i.e decorative trim) needs to be replacement with the same [or substantially similar]. Where this gets grey is of course when something is both functional and aesthetic [sadly the law is rarely black and white when it comes to things like this].

Interestingly this case is also the case that supports the use of 'Jacking and Packing' foundations - it is a technique commonly in use currently, and only serves a functional purpose.

There were many other areas in the case - you can read a summary here:
https://duncancotterill.com/publications/judgment-summary-kane-bruce-parkin-v-vero-insurance-new-zealand-ltd

EDIT: Yes this is a substantial simplification of the findings. Also I am not a lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal or financial advice of any kind.

tjholding, Jun 15, 4:35 am

Share this thread