Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 47/2018
[2018] NZSC 68

BETWEEN	RUIREN XU AND DIAMANTINA TRUST LIMITED Applicants
AND	IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	N R Campbell QC and J Moss for Applicants M G Ring QC and C M Laband for Respondent
Judgment:	2 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Canterbury Legal Services, Christchurch for Applicants
DLA Piper, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed their appeal against a judgment of Nation J. The primary dispute centred on the interpretation and application of an insurance policy issued by IAG New Zealand Limited. The applicants argued that the insurance policy covered losses incurred due to an earthquake, while IAG contended that the policy excluded such coverage. The Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of IAG, leading to the applicants' appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the insurance policy and applied relevant legal principles. Specifically, the Court had to determine the extent of coverage for earthquake-related damages under the policy and whether the exclusion clauses were applicable. The applicants argued that the exclusion clauses did not apply to their situation, while IAG maintained that the exclusions were clear and unambiguous.

The Supreme Court granted the applicants leave to appeal and found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy did provide coverage for earthquake-related losses, contrary to the findings of the lower courts. The Court emphasised that the exclusion clauses were not applicable to the specific circumstances of the applicants, and thus, the applicants were entitled to a remedy under the policy. The Court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s findings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established