How IAG, Insurance Australia Group dealt with the valid claims resulting from the fire that destroyed Killara, a luxury house and Qualmark 5 star Lodge, near Kerikeri, Northland New Zealand is the subject of this detailed case study.
The New Zealand Government has strict rules all insurance companies must follow that dictate how they treat their customers. Insurers must deal with their customers fairly. It is clear from the evidence here that IAG has not dealt with the claims from the Robinsons in respect of the Killara Fire fairly at all.
Throughout the last nine years, IAG have acted in BAD FAITH towards the insured, numerous complaints to the NZ Government have been made and resulted in nothing being done. One can only question why this is the case?
NO RESPONSE FROM IAG
IAG who must be fully aware of this and our other websites have taken no action to have it removed from the internet. Apparently they have no issues with us disclosing the details of their crimes and cannot proceed against us since they accept that everything here is true! Or are they too scared to say anything!
The Insured Property – Killara, 125a Ness Road, Waipapa, Northland New Zealand. A 495sq m luxury house and Qualmark 5 star Lodge with a valuation based on a offer for purchase from a client of Ray White Estate Agency, Kerikeri of $2.995M (including the land)
Also insured were the personal contents to a sum of $100,000 and two motor vehicles with combined agreed valuation of $43,000.
The Insured – Chris and Alison Robinson who lived at the property which was owned by their trust, the Killara Trust. The interest of the Trust was disclosed along with that of ASB when the policy was taken out. They had left the property early on the day of the fire and were in Hamilton, some 400Km distant when the fire occurred.
The Event – the property was totally destroyed by fire, first reported at around midnight on 9 September 2011.
The Cause – Intruders definitely were at the fire scene, they had forced entry by smashing a laminated glass panel in bi-fold doors leading to the ground floor bedroom suite. There was evidence of jewellery being removed and no remains of the really valuable items that existed in the property such as bronze statues, ceramic art pieces, antique glass and the like were found in the debris. DNA of two unidentified persons was found at the barn on two fresh cigarette butts. Rocks had been used to smash windows and glass balustrades during the early stages of the fire, the rocks and the broken glass were found on top of fire debris at the scene.
The Investigators, Maurice Fletcher of PINZ Whangarei was initially appointed, he attended the scene on 11 September 2011 meeting with the Chris Robinson who he immediately accused of causing the fire, even before he had stepped into the remains of the property. When he did so he found no evidence to back up his accusations. He called for reinforcements and Russell Joseph of Corporate Risks Limited arrived at the scene on 14 September 2011.
The Case Study has been broken down into sections
IAG’s illegal activities in this case included the following:-
- Falsifying evidence
- Introducing evidence into fire scene
- Framing Chris Robinson for Arson
- Conspiring to bring false accusation against Chris Robinson.
- Bribing Police officers
- False arrest of Chris Robinson
- Deliberately delaying to force Bankruptcy on the insured.
- Conspiring to defeat justice
- Interfering in applications for Legal Aid by the Insured.
All the facts, the evidence and the results of their actions are recorded here, you will be shocked by just how far IAG went to avoid meeting the claims.
And, even more shocked, when you realise it is just an example of the DELAY, DENY, DEFEND system they operate to increase profits at the expense of policyholders not an isolated occurrence.
IAG’s website leads with this graphic, claiming their PURPOSE is to ‘Make your world a safer place’
Please read the pages here and ask yourself if IAG really does ‘make your world a safer place‘ ?
I’m sure you will agree that their ‘purpose‘ is not that at all but to make as much profit as possible at the cost of their policyholders.