Question of Law Lecturers at University of Canterbury Earthquake Insurance Law

A question of my Law Lecturers at the University of Canterbury.
Law or Lawlessness in N Z? 23/6/2015
At a recent well attended earthquake related public meeting in the cardboard Cathedral, on 17th April 2015, a Christchurch City Councillor, Mrs Ali Jones, twice asked the Lawyer and the assembled earthquake victims, (almost plea like), from Auckland about why the local Christchurch lawyers had failed to utilise the utmost good faith argument in relation to the earthquake related insurance claims? Utmost good faith is or well should have been, argued and exhausted in the courts well before this. It was contended that the decision not to has left this class action opportunity. The possible outcome for those who had settled with their insurer’s means that they may well be in line for an additional payment. Albeit with the litigation fund providers known percentage having been deducted.
Why does it take a lawyer from Auckland to come to Christchurch, after almost five years, in the company of a private litigation fund provision specialised and tell people he considers they all have the basis for a class action against the insurance industry companies on the basis that they have not been acting in the utmost of good faith? If this gentleman is right then in whose best interests have the local practitioners been acting in? Both the Auckland lawyer and the litigation fund provider spoke and advanced their arguments in favour of this class action. Begs the further question as to when claims must be both lodged and secondly settled?
The Auckland lawyer was reluctant to suggest there was improvability in his Christchurch based colleague’s actions as he would have been forced to confirm there was demonstrably much room for improvement in the very colleagues he sat alongside at the University of Canterbury lectures halls. Note our Mayoress Lianne Dalziel and former but long time Labour East has an LLB from U C as does our current Minister of Justice, Mrs Amy Adams and Member of Parliament for the nearby electorate of Selwyn. They undoubtedly will have a view and I will let them have a copy of this toute de suite.
Begs the question as to the standard of legal advice the Christchurch City Council has been in receipt of themselves? The settlement figures may well have been significantly more should the argument have been forcefully trotted out in the numerous court matters since the devastating earthquake events of September 2010 and Feb 2011.
I look at my collection of expensive University of Canterbury recommended text books and think why this important constituent, of contracts of any kind, not been stressed to the fullest extent of the law by the local legal fraternity to protect their clients from the Insurance industry giants? Surely that was why they were engaged by the victims of these two major events in the first instance. This, with the given it was in the text books when they were studying, in many instance at “U C” too.
Could this mean that the local Christchurch lawyers referred to by the Christchurch City Councillor have not utilised the full extent of the policy conditions nor the laws? Surely they will want to defend their services to date?
Should this not be the case can therefore the existing utilisers of legal services based in Christchurch collectively ask for their fees back, claim for damages and perhaps even exemplary damages? Is this a class action as a result of a class action?
Could numerous users of the localised legal services lodge complaints with the N Z Law Society and with the possible result that hoards of lawyers may become struck off?
Could this mean the legal firms in Christchurch must notify their insurance brokers and insurance companies alike?
Further could this mean the insurers must notify their reinsurers and with the possible increase in premiums, assuming (and this is a huge assumption) continued cover is offered, and hence leading to a further increase in hourly rate fees to the Christchurch earthquake victims? Professional Indemnity Insurance being just one type of insurance cover that comes to mind.
Brings me again to the subject of the worth and cost of these expensive law text books? Many of their authors abound the halls of this University and one perhaps has a dual role as being a member of the University Council. They must have an opinion too?
Has the University of Canterbury’s settlement figure of $550 million been far too little and affecting the ability of the University to rebuild without the taxpayers continued increasing assistance and further the Students Association plans to rebuild the much awaited “Foundry” high rise?
In summary should this and as I say above other possible class actions succeed then does that make it clear, unequivocal perhaps, to the general public that the law is not for them but just for those whom practice it? Surely the law is to protect the vulnerable when the need arises? If my suggestion only is correct then the rule of law has failed irrevocably.
I await the University of Canterbury’s tutor/academia’s response and the ensuing debate/argument which I trust you will not shy away from ladies and gentlemen.
“No Nukes” University of Canterbury Year One Law Student Number 86829284
E. & O. E.