NEW ZEALAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kiri Harkess, McElroys
Disability Life and disability policy disputes also rarely come before New Zealand courts, with many being dealt with under the approved financial dispute resolution schemes. Fletcher v Lawlink Group Ltd [2025] NZHC 162 concerned a group disability insurance policy, and the insurer’s rights under the policy when an insured person refused to provide ongoing information to sup- port a disability claim. Unsurprisingly, the High Court found that the insurer reasonably requested the medi- cal information, which it was entitled to under the pol- icy, and that in the absence of supporting information the insurer was entitled to cease benefit payments. Looking Forwards The focus in 2026 and beyond is likely to remain on enhancing legal protections and outcomes for con- sumers of insurance, and for consumers dealing with insured parties. New Zealand’s insurance law land- scape will be fundamentally altered once the Con- tracts of Insurance Act 2024 is fully implemented, and by the imposition of proportionate liability and mandatory insurance requirements in the building and construction sectors, among other legislative reforms.
carve-outs for issues that have important conse- quences for the insurer (or insurers generally) or that are important or novel points of law. This is rarely exer- cised, but in IAG New Zealand Ltd v Aubrey [2025] NZHC 3672, IAG sought declaratory orders on the interpretation of a faulty workmanship exclusion in a contract works policy on the grounds that it was an issue that had important consequences for its busi- ness, as the exclusion was a standard policy term. The High Court narrowly construed the exclusion, holding that “workmanship” referred only to the pri- mary contractual work that the contractor was hired to perform and not work ancillary to the primary task such as protective measures to adjacent building ele- ments. The court distinguished Aubrey from TimTech Chemicals Ltd v QBE Insurance [2012] NZCA 274, in which the Court of Appeal held that workmanship meant the whole physical responsibility of performing the contract, thus covering both primary and ancillary tasks. The authors understand that Aubrey is under appeal.
372 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook