Angus v Ace Insurance Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-463-475 [2014] NZHC 258

BETWEEN  DENNIS WILLIAM ANGUS AND BRIAN ERSKINE-SHAW

First Plaintiffs

SHERYL ELEANOR ANGUS AND BRIAN ERSKINE-SHAW

Second Plaintiffs

DENNIS WILLIAM ANGUS AND SHERYL ELEANOR ANGUS Third Plaintiffs

ANDACE INSURANCE LIMITED First Defendant

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS AS PER POLICY CHG090466

Second Defendant

Hearing:                   4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28 and 29

November 2013

Appearances:           K M Quinn and S M Thompson for Plaintiffs

D P H Jones QC and M L Evans for Defendants

Judgment:                24 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on

24 February 2014 at 1.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Lance Lawson, Rotorua

DLA Phillips Fox, Auckland
Counsel:

K M Quinn, Auckland

ANGUS v ACE INSURANCE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 258 [24 February 2014]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] The plaintiffs ..........................................................................................................[6] The onus and standard of proof............................................................................[14] The Pinelands Hotel .............................................................................................[22] The account given by Mr Angus at the trial .........................................................[28] The principal issues ..............................................................................................[54] The alarm .............................................................................................................[61]

The significance of the issues concerning the alarm system in the main building ........................................................................................................[61] The alarm system .........................................................................................[67] Evidence given by Mr Angus ........................................................................[79] Evidence given by Ms Peka ..........................................................................[83] Evidence given by Ms Bennett......................................................................[90] Evidence given by Mrs Angus ......................................................................[93] The Chubb records .......................................................................................[99] Discussion ..................................................................................................[105]

Other issues with the account given by Mr Angus.............................................[130]

Initial encounter with the robbers ............................................................... [131

A planned robbery and arson, but who were the robbers? ........................[140] The taping of the wrists ..............................................................................[165] Bags carried by the robbers .......................................................................[171] A trail of items left by the robbers ..............................................................[174]

Accelerant on Mr Angus’s clothing....................................................................[182] Accelerant on the vest, shirt, shorts and shoes ..........................................[182] More about the vest ....................................................................................[205] The vest and the sequence ..........................................................................[218] Conclusions about the accelerant on Mr Angus’s clothing ........................[222]

The fire ...............................................................................................................[223] Timing ................................................................................................................[266] Did Mr Angus have a motive to set the fire? .....................................................[278] The attempted sale of the business .............................................................[281]

The valuation evidence...............................................................................[292] The accounting evidence ............................................................................[300] The defendants’ right to require reinstatement...........................................[326] Conclusion on motive .................................................................................[334]

Conclusions and result .......................................................................................[336]

Introduction

[1]      In  the  early  morning  of  Friday  2  July  2010,  the  main  building  of  the Pinelands Hotel in Kawerau was destroyed by fire.  There is no dispute that the fire was deliberately lit.

[2]      The plaintiffs, who were the proprietors and operators of the hotel, seek to recover money allegedly owing by the defendants as a result of the fire under two policies of insurance.   The first, the “material  damage policy”,  indemnified the insured in respect of any unintended and unforeseen physical loss or damage to the insured property.   The second, the “business interruption policy”, indemnified the insured in respect of interruption or interference with the hotel business.

[3]      The plaintiffs’ case is that there was a robbery in which Mr Angus was doused with petrol and compelled to hand over money before the robbers…