23 February 2022

Insurance: Sneesby v. Southern Response

Having settled a Christchurch earthquake insurance claim against Southern Response in 2017 as ‘full and final’ settlement of all claims, John Sneesby could not later make a further claim supposedly on behalf of himself and some 9500 other people he says were underpaid.

Mr Sneesby says he was sold short in 2014 when Southern Response did not pay out his full entitlement under an AMI insurance policy. Government-funded Southern Response took over AMI Insurance earthquake liabilities when the sheer weight of claims meant AMI would shut up shop, insolvent.  Mr Sneesby says he is owed at least a further $6200.  This arose after a 2016 High Court case identified professional design fees should have been included in cash settlement payouts: Dodds Case.

Mr Sneesby mounted a class action, claiming in his name on behalf of all policyholders similarly paid short.  Southern Response told the High Court it has responded to the Dodds decision by offering a top-up to affected policyholders previously paid out.  It challenged Mr Sneesby’s right to bring a class action.

Associate judge Lester ruled Mr Sneesby did not even get to first base.  Mr Sneesby ended entirely separate Christchurch earthquake litigation against Southern Response in 2017, signing an extensive ‘full and final’ settlement agreement preventing any ‘further or other claim.’  Judge Lester said litigants can sign away rights and claims they are unaware of, provided the wording is clear.  The effect of the 2017 ‘full and final’ settlement was to bar Mr Sneesby from re-opening his earlier separate 2014 claim, Judge Lester ruled.

Sneesby v. Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd – High Court (23.02.22)

22.042