abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

22 Jul 2014

Author:
OECD Watch

OECD complaint against Tower Insurance

"WeCAN vs. Tower Insurance", 11 Nov 2013

Current status Filed - Issue Damaged homes after 2011 earthquakes in New-Zealand - Summary of the case In September 2010, four major earthquakes and an estimated 13,000 aftershocks devastated the Canterbury region, which includes New Zealands second largest city, Christchurch. The earthquakes resulted in 185 deaths and injured 11,432 people. Multiple complainants have alleged that the Earthquake Commission, Southern Response, AIG New Zealand, Tower Insurance, and Vero Insurances failure to resolve insurance claims more than three years after the earthquakes has violated their rights to health and adequate housing in accordance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Multiple complainants have also alleged that Fletcher Construction has not started repairs, not completed repairs, or has inadequately repaired earthquake-damaged homes and has thus violated their rights to health and adequate housing as well.- Developments/Outcome The NCP rejected the complaint against the Earthquake Commission by arguing it is not a multinational enterprise or for-profit entity (using an interpretation/reasoning different than the Korean NCP in the Dae Kwang case above). The NCP also rejected the Southern Response case by arguing it only competes in NZs domestic market (yet another interpretation of MNE). WeCAN challenged the NCPs decision in a 24 March submission. The NCP has requested more information about the other cases, which it has acknowledged are subject to the Guidelines. WeCAN is currently compiling the requested evidence.

Timeline

Privacy information

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies. You can set your privacy choices below. Changes will take effect immediately.

For more information on our use of web storage, please refer to our Data Usage and Cookies Policy

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Analytics cookie

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

Your privacy choices for this site

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies to enhance your experience beyond necessary core functionality.