Actual floor area v Insured floor area

Posted 14 Mar 2017 by GrantShandLawyers
Posted in Legal

In Myall v Tower Insurance Ltd [2016] NZHC 251 the High Court (Dunningham J) considered Tower’s obligations under the insurance policy where the actual floor area was 799m2, but the owner had insured the house for only 650m2.  The number of rooms and amenities were not specified on the insurance policy schedule which only referred to the insured house being a house built in 1885  with an area of 650m2.  There were 8 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms. Tower calculated the premiums based on 650m2.  Tower used a pro rata adjustment to reduce the calculated rebuild cost.  Mr Myall suggested that elements unaffected by area such as numbers of toilets and […]

The post Actual floor area v Insured floor area appeared first on Grant Shand.

This article was sourced from another website - view the original article.

Discussion

Related Items

Young v Tower Insurance – costs

Young v Tower Insurance – costs

Friday, 24 March 2017 10:06 a.m. by GrantShandLawyers
Actual floor area v Insured floor area

Actual floor area v Insured floor area

Tuesday, 14 March 2017 10:05 a.m. by GrantShandLawyers