You are here

How EQC settles claims

Go directly to our Questions and Answers page on how EQC's approach to assessing and settling building claims

EQC’s approach to assessing and settling building claims is unchanged

The Earthquake Commission (EQC) and the EQC Action Group, which represents 89 customers, have agreed that the principles that guide EQC’s assessment and settlement of building claims meet the requirements of the Earthquake Commission Act.

After discussions, both parties have determined that there is no material disagreement between them, and have agreed a joint statement that helps clarify the extent of EQC’s liability under the EQC Act.

In summary the joint statement:

  • Reaffirms EQC’s position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as “when new”, which includes complying with any applicable laws.
  • Makes clear that if repairing an earthquake damaged part of a house means work is also required on an undamaged part of the house, EQC will cover the cost of this work.
  • Also reaffirms that while EQC gives due consideration to the MBIE guidance on floor levels it does not use the guidance as its only benchmark to determine whether or not it has fulfilled its repair obligations under the EQC Act.
  • Reassures EQC customers that the standard of repair used by EQC is the same whether they are cash settled or if their home is repaired as part of the Canterbury Home Repair Programme.

How EQC settles any particular claim applying the principles recorded in the joint statement depends on a raft of facts specific to each home. The questions and answers below explain EQC’s approach to some of these practical concerns. 

View our page of Questions and Answers relating to EQC's approach to assessing and settling building claims.

View the discussion timeline

More information about EQC’s approach to repairing houses can also be found here

Click here to read the Joint Statement between the EQC Action Group and EQC

Media Release 28 April 2016, 14:41 - EQC rejects the Action Group’s claim that it has won a landmark settlement More >>>

To view the full High Court's decision on costs, click here.

 

Page last updated:

Translated material: