Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[MaybeTop8]

Act are going full Trump at the behest of their masters


View: https://bsky.app/profile/bmhayward.bsky.social/post/3lkphtitupk2r

 

[Bay39er]

Some interesting developments in the commercial building scene in Auckland recently. Firstly, Fletcher Building are taking the Waterproofing company which is said to have started the fire at the NZ International Convention Centre to court.

​

I think more correctly the insurers of Fletchers/Skycity are taking the insurers of the waterproofing company to court

 

[Rizzah]

Utterly poor economic management


View: https://bsky.app/profile/bernardchickey.bsky.social/post/3lkrg5arbvk2m

This is bad, because it's completely avoidable.
The Govt has a multitude of fiscal mechanisms to assist with funding of councils at a local and regional level.
Reducing funding offloads further costs to our sleepy townsfolk, when the coalition say they are concerned about the cost of living.

How to blow up your economy - Do what National the coalition are doing.
2% contraction in the economy in 2024. Now that interest rates are going down, we'll trade houses amongst ourselves and call that economic growth. Lol.

 

[miket12]

I think more correctly the insurers of Fletchers/Skycity are taking the insurers of the waterproofing company to court

That would depend on the insurance cover the waterproofing company has. I’d doubt they’d have enough coverage to cover the damage to the NZICC. Wouldn’t that then make the waterproofing company liable for the rest?

Given your background, could a business contract their way out of liability and only be liable only to their insurance cover?

 

[Bay39er]

That would depend on the insurance cover the waterproofing company has. I’d doubt they’d have enough coverage to cover the damage to the NZICC. Wouldn’t that then make the waterproofing company liable for the rest?

Given your background, could a business contract their way out of liability and only be liable only to their insurance cover?

The second question is a little easier to answer (I think) - only if the person they contracted to signed a contract agreeing to that but (and this should be the answer to the first question) why would you as owner enter a contract where your potential losses were say $500m and agree that your contractor only needs a liability cover for say $250m.

My experience suggests that Skycity would have stipulated a contractors all risk policy with a limit sufficient to cover all potential losses - perhaps that should be foreseeable losses and in that is the rub. Were Skycity “smart” enough to foresee a loss of this magnitude?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The second question is a little easier to answer (I think) - only if the person they contracted to signed a contract agreeing to that but (and this should be the answer to the first question) why would you as owner enter a contract where your potential losses were say $500m and agree that your contractor only needs a liability cover for say $250m.

My experience suggests that Skycity would have stipulated a contractors all risk policy with a limit sufficient to cover all potential losses - perhaps that should be foreseeable losses and in that is the rub. Were Skycity “smart” enough to foresee a loss of this magnitude?

Standard insurance in the trades is $5-$10m. Never $500m. I think you are right it’s insurance vs insurance. Beyond that a limited liability company would have peanuts to pay out towards the cost. The company is probably in liquidation already (would be stupid to carry on trading when you’re about to be smashed).

@miket12, would there be an out for the contractors insurance that they could argue the design was at fault due to the flammability? It’s an outsized outcome for a potentially common accident. What happened if lightning struck the roof or a rat chewed through a wire in the flammable insulation, shouldn’t the whole place be designed to still NOT burn down? Seems a poor design fault on top of the accident.

 

[Bay39er]

Standard insurance in the trades is $5-$10m. Never $500m

The company is probably in liquidation already (would be stupid to carry on trading when you’re about to be smashed

$500m was to emphasise a point but having said that this was not a build of $5-$10m so the insurance requirements would be commensurate with the value of the job.

Why do you say in liquidation already?
That’s implying that they were at fault which is yet to be proven.