Landlord loses EQC compo claim

A landlord has lost his claim for an increased payout from the Earthquake Commission (EQC).

Xiaoming He claimed in the High Court that EQC and his insurer owed about $717,000 over and above the $16,000 EQC paid for earthquake damage to his Christchurch property.

He owns house and two garages in Selwyn St, Sydenham.

Part of the house is a business called Jay Dee’s Dairy, and the family that rents it also runs the dairy. A mechanic rents the garages.

In her written decision, Justice Rachel Dunningham dismissed several of He’s points of evidence, saying most of the damage was due to poor maintenance before the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011.

Builders who inspected the property estimated it was at least 80 years old.

It was modified early on to create the shop area and the back was extended in the mid-1950s to create a large room, kitchenette, laundry and bathroom.

The house was on relatively small stone piles with wooden packers on top.

‘‘The subfloor bearers are not attached to these piles and some of the bearers are resting on the ground,’’ Dunningham said.

‘‘The foundations which were located under the newer section of the house, particularly in the northwest corner, are inadequate.’’

There were some rotten wooden piles on the northern side of the house, she noted.

EQC reimbursed He for repairs to the roof and hot water cylinder connections, and for demolishing two damaged chimneys.

It also paid to install a heat pump and He signed a document saying that was instead of repairing one of the chimneys.

In his claim in the High Court, He said he was misled and should be entitled to a new chimney.

‘‘It is almost inconceivable that an astute businessman like Mr He was not aware that he was receiving the heat pump on condition that he relinquish his right to have the chimney rebuilt,’’ Dunningham said.

The judge’s decision discussed evidence based on photographs, expert evidence, and testimony from the tenant.

It said before-and-after photos showed the house was damaged before the earthquakes, and some cracks had old paint in them.

He’s evidence was updated during the trial, which Dunningham said was an ‘‘unsatisfactory sequence of events’’.

‘‘In the plaintiff’s opening submissions, it was, for the first time, suggested that after the September [2010] earthquake there was no discernible damage to the floors presumably to bolster the claim that the February [2011] earthquake had caused the damage,’’ Dunningham said.

The claim failed in all respects except for a minor claim for repairs to plaster damage on a perimeter foundation.