What Canterbury can teach the rest of the country about insurance stress

The Spinoff

9 hours ago

In Canterbury, some people are still dealing with insurance claims nearly 15 years after the earthquakes – and worsening climate change means more New Zealanders may have this emotional and financial toll ahead of them.
Kate Dewes has a four-drawer filing cabinet in the garage of her house in Riccarton, Christchurch; it's filled with documents related to the series of insurance claims and disputed cases she went through to get her home repaired following the 2010 Christchurch earthquake.
'Our general experience was traumatic,' Dewes says. After filing a claim following the initial earthquake, the damage to Dewes' house wasn't completely repaired. She and her husband, Robert Green, asked for the repairs to be fully completed, which became an ordeal that sent them to the High Court, where they had to pay for their own lawyers and expert witnesses. Dewes' case was particularly high profile; it was used as a kind of test case for the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal and a short film was made about Dewes' experience.
It is only recently, after nearly 15 years, that her family has been able to live in a fully repaired home, which doesn't leak or have falling chimneys. 'You saw how I looked in the film – I'm much calmer now. We've got our home back,' Dewes says, sitting in her restored study.
Following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2011 and 2011, insurance claims were an ongoing reminder of the disaster. 'From research in Australia, and anecdotally here, we've heard that disputing an insurance claim can be more distressing than the experience of the disaster itself,' says Lauren Vinnell, a lecturer in psychology at Massey University who studies disasters. 'Insurance is a really important part of recovery; if claims are settled quickly, people are less likely to move, businesses are less likely to close.'
The years following the Canterbury earthquakes showed this acutely. Ilan Noy, a professor of economics, specialises in the impacts of disaster and climate change at Victoria University of Wellington, and has pored through economic data showing how the quakes reshaped Christchurch. 'Data from eight years following the earthquakes show increased levels of anxiety and stress,' he says.
He looked at insurance specifically, comparing people in the red zone who accepted a government buyout of their house at its capital value (CV) to those who made an insurance claim. On a financial level, many people made the wrong choice – they could have got more money from the government than via insurance, or vice versa, with the choice largely influenced by what their neighbours were doing. But people who went through the government buyout process tended to be happier, even if they hadn't got the best deal financially. 'It's a lot more straightforward to tick a box and get the money within weeks,' Noy says. Negotiating with private insurance meant both sides paying for experts, making arguments about what the damage was. 'It's not terribly surprising that that process is more cumbersome than just going with the CV,' Noy says.
Cantabrians' experience with insurance disputes, on a financial and emotional level, has something to teach the rest of the country as disasters exacerbated by climate change continue. Natural hazards like flooding, landslides and wildfires are more intense and frequent in a hotter climate. This is already affecting insurance. Areas with recurrent flooding, for example, have had their premiums hiked; Nick Smith, Nelson mayor, has pointed out that the council's hazard map, identifying risky areas, affected insurance premiums and house sales. Hundreds of insurance claims have already been made following the recent Nelson-Tasman floods.
An independent reference group led by the Ministry of the Environment recently examined the issue of how to pay for climate buyouts in a report on climate adaptation. 'In the past, local and central government have offered buyouts of up to the full value of properties affected by natural hazards. These decisions reduce incentives for people to understand and manage their own risk, can distort property prices, and have given rise to an expectation that buyouts will continue, creating a moral hazard,' the report said. It recommended slowly phasing out buyouts over 20 years, as well as changing land-use patterns to reduce future risks. It's not just people in earthquake-damaged Canterbury who will be negotiating with insurers and the government for the value of their primary asset, it will be people everywhere.
Vinnell's research team, a collaboration between Massey's Centre for Disaster Research and the University of Canterbury, has just launched a survey, trying to get a better understanding of the experience of disputing insurance claims, beyond Canterbury. 'People in a disaster situation are often physically and psychologically traumatised,' she says. 'We're interested in how this interacts with dealing with an insurance dispute.' Vinnell and the other researchers will use the survey as a starting point, also interviewing people about their experiences. While she expects that most people will have had a negative experience, she's also interested in people who have had disputes resolved quickly, and how they feel about it as a result.
The mundane details, of emails and photos, documentation and going through policies line by line, look like office work. But it implicates your home – a major financial asset – and where you can live. Dewes would sometimes stay up all night preparing documents for hearings in the morning. 'When I was up all night with the photocopier going, using my computer, something that kept me strong was knowing that it could help a whole lot of other people settle – but I got close to a breakdown.'
Her hope is that her case will set a precedent for others. After featuring in the short film, she had people come to her house 'bawling their eyes out' over their experiences with insurance claims, and wanting to talk to someone about it. Dewes has worked as peace campaigner and researcher; she was able to pay for lawyers and experts and was confident dealing with documents, which isn't the case for everyone. Still, the experience of disputing the insurance claim felt harrowing. 'In the end, the earthquakes were an absolute doddle compared to the insurance company,' says Robert Green, Dewes' husband. Continuing to find the money for lawyers was stressful, as was the fact that Green was diagnosed with cancer in 2013.
'I don't allow myself to think about what I could have done with the last 15 years if we hadn't had to deal with this – you'd just become resentful,' says Green. Dewes imagines more time with her kids and grandkids; less time living in a cold, leaky house, waiting for repairs. Both have practical tips for people preparing to dispute insurance claims.
'Take notes, of everything,' Dewes says. When calling an insurance company, write down what you've discussed; take photos and keep evidence of work you've done on your home in case the cause of damage is debated afterwards. She's also heard of people whose computers and documents are destroyed in a disaster; she recommends digital and hard copies of documents, kept at a different location.
Insurance makes calculations to insure homes based on risk and profit, Noy says. But having ultra-high premiums – like, say, $50,000 – isn't a good look as a business, so in areas exposed to severe natural hazards, insurers may simply refuse to insure houses. 'Insurance is always a one-year contract, so every year insurers can recalculate the risk,' Noy says. Events like Auckland's 2023 floods have caused insurers to advocate for greater flood protection in areas where inundation is likely.
For politicians, choosing to pay for buyouts of houses after a disaster isn't a financial calculation, but a political one. 'It's more about electability than cost,' Noy says. Telling people that their home, and likely their greatest asset, is now impossible to sell because it can't be publicly bought out or privately insured following a disaster is always going to be unpopular. Noy has called the current system, where the government has no set position on buyouts, the 'worst' possible policy option – especially because money spent on buyouts is money not spent on planning and preparing for future disasters.
Vinnell has talked to the Natural Hazards Commission and the Insurance Council, both of which are interested in the outcomes of her research into the emotional effect of insurance disputes. 'We're particularly interested in how one experience might shape decisions to dispute insurance in the future,' she says. Homes are linked to emotions as well as mortgages and bank accounts. 'How much do insurance claims take into account the value of staying in your neighbourhood, choosing to rebuild or repair?'
The number of people dealing with insurance disputes is likely to keep rising as disasters continue. 'I can see that this problem is going to get worse because of climate change, let alone another major earthquake,' Green says. Both he and Dewes feel for the many people who share their experience of living in damaged houses, not knowing when they will get a resolution. 'My heart aches for anyone else who has to go through what we went through,' Dewes says.