Summary judgment — de-facto relationship — ownership — loss — insurance policy — motorhome — Administrator — Wills Act 2007 — Family Protection Act 1955 — Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 — Administration Act 1969, ss 24 & 77 — Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, s 10 — Krukziener v Hanover Finance Ltd [2008] NZCA 187, (2008) 19 PRNZ 162 — Pemberton v Chappell [1987] 1 NZLR 1 (CA) — Zurich Australian Insurance Limited v Cognition Education Limited [2014] NZSC 188, [2015] 1 NZLR 383 — Bilbie Dymock Corp Limited v Patel (1987) 1 PRNZ 84 (CA) — Hebi Hunaneg Industrial Development Co Limited v Shi [2021] NZHC 2687 — SHK Trustee Co Ltd v NZDMG Ltd [2021] NZHC 1895 — Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5, [2010] 2 NZLR 444 — Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australasian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147, [2015] 1 NZLR 342 — Bathurst Resources Limited and Buller Coal Limited v L & M Coal Holdings Limited [2021] NZSC 85 — The Malthouse Limited v Rangatira Limited [2019] NZCA 621 — Moore v Evans [1980] ACA 185 — Kraal v Earthquake Commission and Allianz New Zealand Limited [2015] NZCA 13 — Re Mining Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [1999] 1 Qd R 60 (QCA) — R and B Directional Drilling Pty Ltd (in liq) v C G U Insurance Limited (No. 2) [2019] FCR 458 — Technologies Holdings Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited HC Auckland CIV 2005-404-3450, August 2008 — Bain v Fothergill (1874) LR HL — Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 [1953] All ER 810 — Warren and Mahoney v Dynes CA49/88 26 October 1988. The plaintiff sought a summary judgment for a claim under an existing insurance policy, claiming losses of $80,000. The policy covered a motorhome which the plaintiff had enjoyed the use of with her de-facto partner over a period of five years. After the de-facto partner's death, the motorhome was taken from the plaintiff by her former partner's son, who refused to return the motorhome on the basis that the ownership was at issue. The Court considered the plaintiff to be the valid owner of the motorhome, along with all other assets of the estate, as she had been recognised as the Administrator of her partner's estate. While the sons claimed ownership of the motorhome through a Will letter from the deceased, the Court held that the letter had not been recognised as having any validity at law and the motorhome should have been returned when the plaintiff had demanded. The Court held that the sons would have no claim to any of their father's assets or how they were to be administered until they issued proceedings. The definition of "loss" was considered for the purposes of the insurance policy. The motorhome was not physically lost as it was in the possession of the deceased's sons, but the plaintiff has been deprived of its use and access. The Judge held that the sons' confiscation of and refusal to return the motorhome was unintended and/or unexpected, and caused the plaintiff physical loss as she was no longer in physical possession. The plaintiff was not required to issue proceedings against the sons to recover the motorhome, as the defendant was held to be bound by the express terms in the insurance policy. The Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to $80,000 from the defendant insurance company for the motorhome policy. Interest was granted on top of this claim, along with costs and disbursements. Judgment Date: 9 June 2022