Case studies

Summary

Akram's story

Akram planned to extend the home he bought 5 years ago in Auckland into a family home as he and his wife were having a baby. When Akram was looking to buy the house, his lawyer had flagged that there was a section 72 notice on the property title to make home buyers aware of natural hazard risk. The notice had been placed because the property was known to be at risk of landslides, but Akram wasn’t too worried about that at the time and bought the house as he loved the location and view.

During the building consent process for the extension, the section 72 notice was flagged again. Akram sought further legal advice and learned that if he made a natural hazards insurance claim in the future for landslide damage to his home or land, the Natural Hazards Commission could fully or partly decline that claim.

Deciding how to proceed

Akram took time to consider his options. He spoke with his lawyer, private insurer and the local council to fully understand what the section 72 notice meant for him as a homeowner.

Knowing the risks, Akram decided to continue with the extension. As part of the design and consent process, he worked with his builder and engineer to include additional measures that would reduce the risk of landslide damage to the house and garden. These included strengthening foundations, managing stormwater, and stabilising parts of the slope as part of the construction work.

Akram also explored with the council what might be required for the section 72 notice to be reviewed in the future.

Making a decision based on risk

Akram went ahead with building his home extension, understanding that he was accepting a known level of natural hazard risk. He felt confident that the extra steps he chose to take during construction would reduce the likelihood of damage and help protect his home and land over time, even though he knew there might still be no NHCover for landslide damage.

“It wasn’t a decision I made lightly,” Akram says. “But having clear information and advice meant I knew what I was taking on and could design the extension and add some extra things to manage that risk as best as possible.”

Summary

This example shows how natural hazards insurance (NHCover) applies only to land within 8 metres of a house after a landslide. The landslide comes from land owned by the local council. The homeowner is advised to speak to the council about repairing the damage as it isn’t covered by his natural hazards insurance.

James' story

James owns a home on a section in a hilly suburb in Nelson. Behind his property is a steep bank that forms part of a reserve owned and maintained by the local council.

After a period of prolonged heavy rain, part of the bank above his property failed. Soil, rock and vegetation slid downhill from the council land and came onto James’s section, covering part of his backyard and damaging a fence and his terraced garden near the boundary.

The slip stopped 10 metres from his house. However, the land at the back of the property, about 25 metres from his house, was left unstable and James was concerned about the risk of further slips from the slope above.

Making a claim

James called his private insurer to report the damage. While he understood that his home insurance covered his house, garage and garden shed, he was unsure how damage caused by a landslide from neighbouring land would be treated.

His claim manager explained that insurance from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake, called NHCover, was included in his home insurance policy and it provides limited cover for land. She also said an assessment would be needed to determine which parts, if any, of James’ land damage would be included under NHCover.

Assessing the damage

After an assessor had been round to look at the damage, James’ claim manager explained that the land damage was not covered under his home insurance policy as NHCover only covers land up to 8 metres from his house and the damaged land was further away.

The claim outcome

The claim was not accepted, and James did not receive an insurance settlement for the land damage. He was disappointed by this, particularly because the damage had come from outside his property boundary and was not something he could have prevented.

James talked to a friend about the situation, who suggested he get in touch with the council to see if they were planning to fix the land so this wouldn’t happen again. He also decided to speak to a lawyer about who was responsible for fixing the land.

James called the council about next steps, including whether the slope would be assessed and stabilised to reduce the risk of further damage. The council advised that they had put the bank above James’ house on their list of repairs, but it might be some weeks before they got to it.
The experience highlighted for James how complex landslide situations can be, especially when multiple landowners are involved.

“It feels unfair when the problem starts somewhere else but ends up on your property,” he says. “I assumed insurance would help, but it wasn’t covered as the slip didn’t come near my house. I now know that it’s important to understand not just your own property, but what’s around it as well and who’s responsible when things go wrong.”

Summary

This example explains how natural hazards insurance cover (NHCover) works for a home and its surrounding land after a landslide. The settlement pays for all the damage to the house. Even though all the land damage is covered by natural hazards insurance, the settlement is only a contribution to the expensive job of stabilising a bank and repairing the land damage.

Sarah's story

Sarah lives in a standalone house on a small residential section in Dunedin. Her home sits at the bottom of a sloping bank. The bank isn’t steep, so she wasn’t worried about the possibility of landslides when she bought the house.

However, after a period of heavy rain, part of the bank failed. Soil, rock and vegetation slid down the slope and struck the rear of Sarah’s house.

The slip also damaged the patio and garden immediately behind the house, leaving the bank unstable and making Sarah concerned about future slips.

The landslide caused visible damage to the back wall of the house and affected drainage around the foundations. While the house remained safe to live in, repairs were needed. The land behind the house also required stabilisation to reduce the risk of further movement.

Making a claim

Sarah contacted her private insurer soon after the landslide. She knew that damage to the house would be covered under her home insurance, but she was less certain about how land damage worked and if she had any cover.

Her insurer explained that the claim would include two parts: a building claim for damage to the house and a land claim, both assessed under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act.

Assessing the damage

An assessor visited the property to inspect the damage to the house and the affected land. The assessor confirmed that the damaged land was within 8 metres of the house, which meant it was covered by natural hazards insurance. However, her claim manager told Sarah that the most she could be paid was the cost of the insured damaged land, which would be unlikely to cover the full cost of repairing and stabilising the bank.

Because the damage was close to the house and there was a possible risk of further land movement, the assessor engaged a geotechnical engineer to investigate and provide a concept for repairs. The geotechnical advice made it clear that properly stabilising the slope would be complex and expensive. The assessor later calculated that the repair cost would be about eight times the market value of the affected land.

Settling the claim

Sarah received two claim outcomes, which confirmed the settlements she would be paid. The payment for the building claim covered the full cost to repair her house. She was relieved that the damage to her home could be repaired properly, without needing to contribute financially herself.

The settlement for the land damage was smaller. It reflected the market value of the damaged land rather than the cost of the engineering work needed to fully stabilise the bank. Sarah decided to use the land settlement as a contribution towards important stabilisation work and began planning how to fund the remaining cost herself.

“I’m really grateful the house repairs are covered,” she says. “But it’s hard knowing the land behind the house still needs major work, and the payment only covers a small part of that. It’s been a learning curve. I know now how important it is not to make assumptions about natural hazard risk when buying a house and to understand what’s covered by insurance − and what isn’t – before something happens.”

Summary

This example shows how natural hazards insurance cover (NHCover) applies to land.

Most of a large rural property isn’t covered after a landslide and the homeowner gets a much smaller settlement amount than he was expecting. The settlement includes a payment for likely future damage.

Mark's story

Mark owns a large rural lifestyle property in Hawke’s Bay, with grazing land, mature trees and multiple paddocks surrounding his home.
After several days of heavy rain, a section of hillside on the property below Mark’s house gave way. Soil, rock and vegetation slipped downhill, damaging a wide area of grazing land and blocking an access track used for moving stock and farm vehicles.

Most of the landslide occurred well away from his house and farm buildings. However, a small portion of the slip came close to Mark’s house. None of the buildings were damaged, but the land close to the house was destabilised, and the slip made part of the property unsafe and difficult to use.

Making a claim

Mark went online to his private insurers’ website to make a claim for the damage. This was his first natural hazards claim, and he assumed that all his land damage would be covered.

His claim manager explained that the claim would be assessed under NHCover, the government’s natural hazards insurance scheme, as landslide damage to land is only covered under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act and not private insurance. However, the claim manager said, the most he could be paid would be value of his insured damaged land, even if the estimated repair cost was higher, as that was the limit in the Act. The claim manager also explained that only damaged land within 8 metres of Mark’s house was insured.

Assessing the damage

An assessor visited the property to inspect the slip and measure how much of the damaged land fell within 8 metres of Mark’s insured buildings. Mark was glad the assessor reminded him about this limit as he’d forgotten it. There was a lot of information to take in at the start of the claim when he was stressed and worried about his property.

A geotechnical engineer later visited the property to assess the nature of the land movement and future risk. Part of the settlement was also for what’s called imminent damage, because the geotechnical engineer determined it more likely than not that some additional land would slip in the next 12 months. This meant Mark's NHCover entitlement for that possibility was included in his settlement, minimising the need for a future claim and allowing him to factor that into his next steps.

The assessment confirmed that only a small portion of the damaged land was within the 8-metre zone around the house. The majority of the landslide occurred outside the area covered by natural hazards insurance for land.

Settling the claim

Mark received a cash settlement based on the market value of the area of damaged land within 8 metres of the house. The payment was a contribution only and was a lot less than the full cost of repairing and stabilising the entire slip.

Mark was disappointed with the size of the payout, as the wider landslide would be expensive to fix. However, once the claim manager explained how the settlement was reached, he understood that the outcome reflected the limits set by the Natural Hazards Insurance Act.

He decided to use the payment to help fund initial stabilisation work near the house and is saving up to make more repairs himself.

“It’s frustrating when most of the damage isn’t covered,” Mark says. “But once I understood how the rules work, I could see why that was the outcome. Land cover is only for the land under and immediately around the house and the access to it, but nothing else. The payment helped, even though it was only part of the picture. I wish I’d understood the limits before this happened.”

Summary

This example shows how natural hazards insurance cover (NHCover) works for a large property with a long, winding driveway. It provides a settlement for only part of the damage caused to the driveway and the surrounding land, so the homeowners need to make up the shortfall themselves.

Emma's story

Emma and her partner live in a rural home near Whangārei accessed by a driveway that winds up a hill from the road to their house. The driveway is around 130 metres long and is the only way in and out of the property.

During a severe cyclone, intense rainfall scoured parts of the driveway and the land around it. Sections of the land beneath the driveway were eroded, leaving ruts and washouts that made it difficult and, in places, unsafe to use.

The cyclone also damaged the asphalt surface on the driveway and undermined a small retaining wall running alongside part of it. Emma was concerned about ongoing access to their home and the risk of further damage if repairs were delayed.

Making a claim

Emma contacted their private insurer to report the damage. Her claim manager explained that the claim would be assessed under their natural hazards insurance cover for land.

While the driveway runs for 130 metres, only the land beneath the first 60 metres − measured in a straight line from the house − was within the area covered by natural hazards land insurance. The remaining length of the driveway and any other land beyond 8 metres from the house was outside the area covered.

The claim manager also explained that the most Emma and her partner could be paid is the value of the insured damaged land, even if the repairs cost more. He added that the driveway surfacing, which was asphalt, was not covered under natural hazards insurance but was included in their private insurance policy.

He then explained that an assessor would need to look at the retaining wall next to the driveway and the other damaged land to determine whether it would be covered or not.

Emma was surprised by what she was told as she and her partner had assumed that the full length of the driveway would be covered, as it was essential for access to their home. They weren’t sure whether the retaining wall would be covered and hadn’t thought about the driveway surfacing or the rest of the land on their large property.

Emma found it difficult to understand why parts of the driveway and land were treated differently, but the assessor explained how land cover focuses on the land under and surrounding the house and immediate access to it and so is limited by distance under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act.

Assessing the damage

An assessor visited the property to inspect the damage and measure how much of the affected driveway and damaged land fell within the area covered by natural hazards insurance. The assessment confirmed that land damage to the first 60 metres of the driveway was covered.

However, damage to the remaining 70 metres of driveway fell outside the covered area and was not insured. The small retaining wall and other damaged land were also excluded from cover as they were too far from the house.

Settling the claim

Emma and her partner received a cash settlement that covered repairs to the land beneath the first 60 metres of the driveway. The payment was a contribution only and did not include the cost of reinstating the asphalt surface, but that was covered by their private insurance.

She was disappointed that more than half of the driveway and damage to other parts of the land was not covered, particularly given how critical the driveway is for accessing their home. Emma and her partner decided to fund the shortfall themselves to repair the driveway and retaining wall to ensure safe access to the property. They’re still considering what to do about the damage to other parts of their land.

“It’s frustrating because the driveway is essential,” Emma says. “I understand now how the insurance works and why only part of our drive and land is covered, but it leaves a big gap between what needs fixing and what our insurance can help with. That’s something we’ll take into consideration in the future in our financial planning, in case something like this happens again.”

Summary

This example shows how NHCover applies to a cross-lease property with two houses on it after a landslide. Two claims, one a building claim and the other a land claim, are managed by one insurer.

The payout for the building claim covers the full cost of repairing the damage, while the land claim payout is a contribution towards repairing the damaged bank.

Lara's story

Lara lives in a semi-detached house with a small garden in Wellington. The house is on a cross-lease, which means she and her neighbours jointly own the whole plot of land around both houses.

Directly behind the houses is a steep bank. At the top is another property with a fenced garden. Heavy rain caused a landslide that brought down some of the garden above, along with part of the fence and soil, rock and plants from the bank. The debris slid under Lara's neighbours’ deck and hit the side of her garage that’s under their house.

Luckily, the slip didn’t damage either of the houses, but the neighbours’ deck was damaged and the path they all used to get to the front of the houses was destroyed. Lara was worried about her garage wall with the weight of the debris that was piled against it and she soon noticed water was leaking into her garage.

Making the claim

Lara took photos of the slip and lodged a claim through her insurer’s website. She got a phone call from a claim manager who explained that an assessor would come round to look at the damage. They attached a factsheet explaining natural hazards insurance and that any land damage had to be within 8 metres of the house to be covered. The claim manager also asked for her neighbours’ insurer and claim number if she knew it, so the insurers could coordinate the two claims behind the scenes.

Assessing the damage

The assessor explained Lara’s claim involved two different parts of natural hazards insurance cover: land damage and building damage. Because the property was a cross-lease, the insurers agreed that one insurer would coordinate a single assessment to save time and ensure Lara and her neighbours didn't have to manage separate processes. The damaged land was mostly on the neighbours’ share of the cross-lease, so the neighbours’ claim would focus on the insured residential land damaged by the landslide, including whether the damaged land was within 8 metres of the houses.

Lara’s claim would focus on the effect of the landslide on her garage and services. The assessor explained that if the slip damaged a drain or pipe serving Lara's home, that claim would be assessed as building-related damage under natural hazards cover, rather than as a land claim. This helped Lara understand why her neighbours’ claim and her own claim were being assessed differently, even though both came from the same landslide.

The assessor confirmed the land damage was all within 8 metres of the houses and arranged for a geotechnical engineer to visit to help assess the land damage and provide a concept for remediating it.

Lara's plumber used a camera to identify that the leak was coming from the greywater drainage for her kitchen sink and laundry. She also said to get any repairs done as soon as possible because there could be health and safety risks from the leak. 
Lara sent a quote with a video from the drain inspection to her insurer showing the damage caused by the landslide. At the same time, Lara’s neighbours were getting reports from the assessor and geotechnical engineer and a scope of works for basic repairs to the land damage.

Settling the claim

Lara's insurer said they’d accepted her claim and she soon got her drain repaired. The neighbours’ insurers let them know that under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act, the most they could be paid is the value of the insured damaged land, even if the repairs cost more. 
The neighbours received the largest share of the land claim payout as a contribution towards repairing the damage, which was mostly on their side of the property, and Lara got a small payment too. However, the estimated full repair cost was a lot more as it’s a steep section and tricky to access.

“I’m relieved both my neighbours and I managed to get a settlement and my drain was fixed quickly,” says Lara. “But it’ll cost a lot more than we received to repair the bank properly and make sure we don’t have another landslide, so we're considering our options.”

Summary

The example explains how natural hazards insurance cover (NHCover) works for damage to a shared driveway with three homeowners.

They receive an equal settlement to get immediate repairs done so they can all access their homes. Their driveway surface is covered by their private insurance, but the excess is greater than the cost of resurfacing.

Liam's story

Liam lives in one of three neighbouring houses in Westport that share a single driveway. The driveway is 46 metres long and is jointly owned by all three property owners, providing the only vehicle access to their homes.

During a major flood, fast‑moving surface water flowed down the driveway, scouring the ground beneath it and washing out sections of the surface. The damage made the driveway difficult to use and raised concerns about safe access for residents and emergency vehicles.

Making a claim

The three owners each contacted their private insurers to report the damage. They were advised that damage to the shared driveway would be assessed under natural hazards land cover provided by the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake.

Liam’s claim manager explained that even though there were three homeowners and three claims, only one assessment would be done for the damage. Liam’s insurer said they would handle the assessment for the shared driveway, and it would cover the land beneath the driveway but not the asphalt surface, which isn’t covered under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act. However, the claim manager confirmed Liam had cover for the surface under his private insurance and said the other homeowners may have cover too, so they should check their policies.

Assessing the damage

An assessor visited the site to inspect the damage and confirm the shared ownership of the driveway. The assessment confirmed that the driveway was less than 60 metres long and within the covered distance from all the houses, so the land beneath it was covered by natural hazards insurance for land. All the homeowners had cover for the driveway surface in their home insurance policies, but their excess was more than the quote for resurfacing.

The assessor prepared a scope of works to repair the land damage to the accessway. He also told Liam that a cash settlement would be made based on the lesser of the cost to repair the driveway and value of the insured damaged land under the Act. Liam discussed what that might mean with his neighbours and how they’d make up the shortfall if the payout wasn’t enough to repair the driveway. 

Settling the claim

A cash settlement was approved to cover the cost of repairing the land beneath the shared driveway with gravel. Because ownership of the driveway is shared, each household received a settlement for one‑third of the total repair cost.

Liam and his neighbours were satisfied with the outcome. The settlement allowed them to organise repairs quickly and restore safe access to their homes. They made plans to save up some money and each chip in for a new asphalt surface to be put on later in the year.

“It made sense that the payment was split evenly,” Liam says. “We all rely on the driveway, and it worked well having one assessment and a clear outcome for everyone. We didn’t expect the driveway surface not to be paid for by our insurance because of the excess, but we can at least get safely in and out until we agree we can all afford to get a new top put on.”