Engineer report missing in Tower Insurance case
A Tower insurance official says an engineer’s report was not sought on a Christchurch house because of a shortage of engineers.
A High Court lawsuit resumed in Christchurch yesterday with evidence from Tower’s witnesses.
Homeowners Matt and Valerie O’Loughlin are suing Tower for full compensation for their earthquake red-zoned Dallington home.
Tower is offering repair compensation even though it is legally impossible to rebuild in a government red zone.
Tower earthquake recovery manager David Ashe told the High Court detailed structural engineering advice had not been carried out on the house.
This was because of a shortage of engineers and reluctance to assess work unlikely to be completed.
A representative of Tower’s project repair management company, Stream, proposed that foundation repairs should be carried out by injecting grouting into the ground to lift the building.
Stream representative Michael O’Leary admitted his company had not carried out any repairs using this method.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions5
I would suggest another use for the injected grouting for Tower execs, but this is a family newspaper.
Stream suggested this grouting for us, too. Not only has it not been carried out by them but it is not to the building code.
I had to tell Tower not to send the Stream guy around again - incompetent and obnoxious.
The Government (maybe through CERA) needs to rectify who has superior precedence in this case. It is unbelievable that on some technicality Tower can seriously make an offer to repair a house that is situated in a red zone. The governments credibility is at stake here.
In this instance Tower are wasting taxpayer money to defend a stance that legally can't be carried out. If Tower weren't an insurance company but, say, a private builder, the case would have been open and shut and a ruling made on day one with a sharp warning to Tower not to waste everyone's time and taxpayers' money defending an indefensible stance. Unless, of course, Tower are going to take the NZ govt and councils to court to enforce the right to have houses in the red zone. And, of course, underwrite the additional annual costs of providing services to one house until the end of time or the life of the house, whichever comes first. Tower's stance is a farce and needs exposing. "Oh, look the emperor had no clothes."
It's time for a royal commission to find out why this madness is continuing. The longer we wait the more they will limit their liability and wait for people to give up and cave in.