Redzone owner not entitled to TC3 foundations

In Rout v Southern Response the HC considered the obligations of an insurer for a red zoned property and what figure the plaintiffs were entitled to when rebuilding on another site or buying a replacement house.  The owners had sold the land to the Crown under the CERA offer so a rebuild was not possible on the existing land.  The Court held that:

  1. The policy did not respond because of the creation of the red zone;

  2. The house was uneconomic to repair as the repair was over 80% of the rebuild costs;

  3. The plaintiffs could not claim the costs of rebuilding extensive pile foundations, as required if rebuilding on the red zoned land, when they were rebuilding their  house on good land outside of the red zone;

  4. General damages were not appropriate as Southern Response had acted reasonably and the delay was partly caused by the plaintiffs negotiating with Southern Response.