Court of Appeal

Well, well, well, three holes in the ground, one more well and we would be talking Texas.

Fidelity Life has copped a flogging in the Appeals Court in a case that isn’t too dis-similar from mine. Andrew Hooker writes at interest.co.nz about the case;

In a recent and controversial Court judgment, the Court of Appeal has confirmed a High Court Judge’s order that an insurance company pay its client’s income under an income protection policy until the dispute over policy coverage is decided by the Court.

Normally, if your income protection insurance company declines your claim, you are hit with a double whammy.

Not only is your income summarily ended, but you have to fight the insurance company without any income.

It’s hard enough paying your lawyer in the best of times. But when you have no income the battle can be daunting or impossible. And if you’re unwell to start with, the stress of the whole fiasco can be too much.
The lack of income for the length of the Court process may just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and forces you into financial (and maybe mental) oblivion.

A cynic might say that this is what some less scrupulous insurance companies play on when they summarily decline such claims.

It seems too common for some insurers to suddenly “turn off the tap” and declare someone fit for work, sometimes on the skimpiest of medical or factual evidence. “There’s nothing wrong with you…go back to work”. Then the insured person has to embark on an expensive battle that he or she is simply unable to fund.

Eventually the insured person can no longer afford the fight and throws in the towel.

In this recent decision, the Court recognised that the insured person was financially ruined without the income and the balance of convenience supported reinstating the payments until the Case was finally resolved.

The Court of Appeal referred to some Canadian cases and in particular a comment by a Canadian Judge that:

“…the wrongful withholding of disability payments may involve more than mere money. As well as taking away comfort and security, it can cause chaos in the plaintiff’s affairs. The long term effects of the loss of security and the impoverished lifestyle caused by cessation can amount to more than mere loss of money and beyond the scope of damages.”

With the case set down for hearing, the Court of Appeal decided that, on the balance of convenience, the insurance company should continue to pay while the dispute went through the Courts.

In doing so, the Court entered unchartered territory for New Zealand insurers and for that reason the decision will be of real concern to the insurance industry.

Until now insurance companies were free to decline and force the financially strapped and income-less customer try to fight against their almost endless resources. However, it seems clear that in some circumstances the Courts will grant an interim order requiring the insurance company to continue to pay until the matter is resolved.

Before getting too excited, it is important to recognise that the grounds on which a Court will make such an order are very limited. And in this case, the insured person provided an undertaking from a relative to repay the funds should the insurance company win the main case.

But some may say that it is a step in the right direction when the refusal to pay will cause irreparable damage if not reversed. In other words, if the insured person’s affairs are such that his or her financial position will crumble before the case is heard, and that even if he or she succeeds, it may be too late, then the court may order the insurance company to continue the payments until the case is decided.

It will be interesting to see how the insurance industry reacts, and what other cases this will be applied to.

Interesting that it is Fidelity Life and interesting that there seems to be a similar pattern in how they impoverish their customers so they can’t fight back. Well this blogger never gives in and this case just adds steel to my resolve to fight them and fight them hard.

Let me make something clear too, my case is far more clean cut than Pilkington’s. There has been and is no allegations of fraud against me, never has been and never will be. it is simply a matter of Fidelity Life deciding, against all medical evidence, including those of their paid doctors 9Prof. Des Gorman, Anthony Asteraidis and Ralf Schnabel) to conclude my claim. Since that time they have delayed and delayed and refused to enter into meaningful dialogue, following pretty much the same route they have employed against Pilkington, playing the long game against a client that they impoverished by their actions.

Well, my site has taken a hammering since posting the infamous secret scampi video. Now by way of a backrounder here is some filler information that tells you why this video is so explosive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirmingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Question 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.