Thread. 1.

"We agree... Southern Response engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct."

That's the Court of Appeal, agreeing with the High Court, about S.R.'s "misleading and deceptive" behaviour.

(Appeal Court decision below.)

Why does this matter? https://twitter.com/CourtsofNZ/status/1302826362185506816

2. It matters because Southern Response was state-owned. And this state-owned insurer was misrepresenting how much money claimants were entitled to. Over & over & over again.

The power imbalance was extraordinary. And, I would argue, the betrayal of trust was truly significant.

3. This one case was pursued by a remarkable couple, Karl & Alison Dodds, and their excellent legal team.

But Karl & Alison weren't alone. Not even close. And the total cost of the underpayments & misrepresentations is now estimated to be somewhere between $300 and $600 million.

4. How and why did a state-owned insurer do that?

How?

And why?

If the people of Christchurch were underpaid by anywhere even approaching those sums, after everything they had been through, by a state-owned insurer, how and why?

What was going on at Southern Response?

Not just the misrepresentations, as extraordinary as they were, but the surveillance of claimants, and the covert campaigns against claimants that Southern Response saw fit to discredit.

I've written about that culture, at length. This from last year: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/under-surveillance

6. How and why did all this happen?

And why don't we know the answer to that?

Still... ...after all these years.

And who is going to meaningfully say sorry to all the people who've been treated this way?

And explain why it happened?

And tell us how it was considered okay?