Vero NZ heads for Supreme Court over leaky apartments
Vero New Zealand will rely on a standard policy exclusion to beat a NZ Supreme Court challenge from a property developer.
The case involves an Auckland apartment block built in the mid-1990s which has since developed water leaks that are estimated to cost $NZ13 million ($10.5 million) to repair. The property group has launched legal action against seven parties, including the building’s insurer.
The Symphony Group has taken its claim against Vero to NZ’s highest court in a bid to have the insurer contribute to the repair costs.
Last year a Court of Appeal decision found in favour of Vero, but the property group last week won the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Vero NZ CEO Roger Bell told insuranceNEWS.com.au the insurer has simply invoked a standard exclusion against problems arising from construction.
“It is a standard exclusion regarding the egress of water through gradual deterioration, we have invoked that and will now await judgement,” he said. “We traditionally exclude this type of event, and the court has previously upheld that exclusion.
“It’s hard to get past a known exclusion. We don’t cover rot.”
The case involves an Auckland apartment block built in the mid-1990s which has since developed water leaks that are estimated to cost $NZ13 million ($10.5 million) to repair. The property group has launched legal action against seven parties, including the building’s insurer.
The Symphony Group has taken its claim against Vero to NZ’s highest court in a bid to have the insurer contribute to the repair costs.
Last year a Court of Appeal decision found in favour of Vero, but the property group last week won the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Vero NZ CEO Roger Bell told insuranceNEWS.com.au the insurer has simply invoked a standard exclusion against problems arising from construction.
“It is a standard exclusion regarding the egress of water through gradual deterioration, we have invoked that and will now await judgement,” he said. “We traditionally exclude this type of event, and the court has previously upheld that exclusion.
“It’s hard to get past a known exclusion. We don’t cover rot.”