The High Court dismissed Peter Work’s insurance claim on grounds that he remotely triggered an electrical circuit primed to start the fire which destroyed his Wellington rental. His appeal to review potential causes for the fire was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Technical evidence about residue left at seat of the blaze and operation of circuit breakers were at issue.
Ten years after the 2013 house fire, the High Court ruled IAG Insurance was justified in refusing payment. Mr Work deliberately triggered the fire and then dishonestly claimed it was an accident, the trial judge decided.
Mr Work is a mechanical engineer. He was in Whanganui on night of the fire.
Evidence was given of fire investigators identifying seat of the blaze in a garage converted into a bedroom, near a computer, printer and standing lamp.
IAG was suspicious.
Mr Work was under financial pressure. He did not have sufficient funds to remediate the rental property before putting it on the market. Power to the property had been disconnected, since it was vacant, yet just prior to the fire, power was reconnected to two circuits within the house connected to the room where the fire started.
Analysis of Mr Work’s computer found he had purchased software allowing remote logins to a linked computer in the weeks prior to the fire.
The trial judge accepted evidence from IAG that Mr Work triggered the fire from his Whanganui computer with a command causing the computer print function to activate in Wellington, and with it have the printer pull out a piece of pre-placed Sellotape opening an electrical circuit linked to a nearby lamp, all designed to cause a fire.
Witnesses saw the house on fire within fifteen minutes of the print function being executed remotely.
IAG suspicions were further heightened when Mr Work belatedly admitted to the Sellotape-rigged print mechanism, explaining it as a prank. It was intended to surprise family members when the light turned on, apparently spontaneously. The fire was not intended; it was an accident, he claimed.
The trial judge dismissed this explanation as an unbelievable fabrication, seeking to explain away damning evidence unearthed by insurance investigators.
Mr Work claimed in the Court of Appeal that investigators drew the wrong conclusions from fire residue.
The Court of Appeal ruled it was too late to challenge this evidence. At the High Court trial, Mr Work knew the substance of the investigators’ theory of how the fire started. That was the time to challenge this explanation.
Work v. IAG New Zealand Ltd – Court of Appeal (18.07.25)
25.165