The Claimants Reference Group (CRG) has issued a statement outlining what it believes are the pros and cons of the announced partnership between EQC and private insurers.
The CRC says it sees several positive improvements that could come from the public-private partnership. These include: claimants getting a single point of contact; there being no need to file two claims; there being no need for the EQC and insurers to double up on assessments; and insurers have better access to resources to prepare for and respond to events.
However, the CRG also pointed out several “fundamental problems” in the model.
CRG chair Ali Jones said the model does not solve one of the critical findings in Dame Silvia Cartwright’s report, which focuses on assessment of damage, and that no matter who is undertaking that assessment – whether EQC, private insurer or contractors – it must be thorough, consistent and accurate.
The decision by EQC follows a trial after the Kaikoura earthquake, which saw private insurers manage EQC’s claims.
“We believe that the outcomes for Kaikoura claimants may not have been adequately reviewed and we are still waiting for details EQC says it has on this,” said Jones. “It would be great to know that claimants are in fully and correctly repaired homes, but who would know? Direct feedback from some claimants to the CRG on what happened in Kaikoura post-quake, does not align with what we have heard from EQC, and we believe it is essential to base a major decision like this on all of the facts.”
According to Jones and the CRG, unless assessments of damage are thorough, consistent and accurate, partnering with private insurers will not address the significant issues claimants have faced, and may continue to face, for many years.
