Summary judgment — insurance — contractual dispute — Christchurch earthquake — Easement Certificate — District Court Rules 2014, rr 12.1, 12.9 — Haines v Carter [2001] 2 NZLR 167 — Pemberton v Chappell [1987] 1 NZLR 1 — European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank [1983] 2 All ER 508 — Attorney-General v Rakiura Holdings Ltd (1986) 1 PRNZ 12 — Middleditch v NZ Hotel Investments Ltd (1992) 5 PRNZ 392. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on a claim of a breach of an insurance contract following damage to their home in the Canterbury earthquake, specifically: $18,655.94 for the rebuilding of the carport; $1,504.62 for the plaintiff's share of the shared driveway; and $10,000 general damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs' insurance contract provided for full replacement costs of the house, including the dwelling, domestic outbuildings and domestic driveways. After rebuilding their house, the defendants refused to pay for the carport and would only pay for 1/16th of the driveway cost (the properties using the driveway were not divided equally). The Judge held that the contract provided for the rebuilding of the house, which included the carport, and that defendant was also liable for the outstanding cost of replacing the driveway because a reasonable person would consider the cost would be equally shared. The Judge, however, did not find the defendant acted in bad faith and therefore did not grant general damages, as simply establishing distress and/or delay is not sufficient. Summary judgment in the sum of $18,655.94 (the carport) and $1504.62 (driveway) was awarded to the Plaintiff. Judgment Date: 10 December 2018.