An Auckland business owner facing a bill for the cost of damaging a burglar’s getaway car says he’s relieved he won’t have to pay for doing what he thinks was right.
“It was a bit frustrating that it took this long for common sense to prevail but in the end, we got the result that we wanted,” said jewellery designer Nick Nielson, adding his thanks to Fair Go for stepping in.
It’s been a frustrating six months waiting for that common sense; in September, his Ponsonby store was burgled.
“I heard multiple crashings, the exact sound of someone trying to bust down a door.”
Fearing the worst, Nielson had rushed downstairs with a baseball bat while his fiancée dialled 111.
The burglar had battered and prised open the front door, ransacked a case of rings and looked like he was going for more when he locked eyes with Nick.
“I was hoping he did exactly what he did which was, ‘Oh no’ and bolts for the door.”
On instinct, Neilson then made sure the intruder was leaving, following him to the doorway, then stepping to the kerb and the getaway car - all of that captured on his security camera system.
“I got the bat at the very end and put that through the passenger window and then as he was driving away, put it through the back windscreen,” Neilson told Fair Go.
He figured on a pat on the back, maybe a gentle lecture about how gung-ho this was, but he would be floored when a bill arrived with a summons to court for the damage he’d done to the getaway car.
The owner wanted $1700, of which he was being sued for just under $1000.
“How is this even a thing?” said Neilson, still in disbelief six months after the robbery, as he awaited a hearing at the Disputes Tribunal.
Police told Fair Go that Neilson’s actions were understandable:
“The victim in this instance was simply trying to protect himself and his property in what was a very frightening incident,” a police spokesperson says.
In general, police say in they don’t recommend people intervene and should instead call 111 and leave the rest to them.
But what this means is, this is not a criminal matter: this is civil recovery by the rental car company, Scotties, where the getaway car was stolen from.
Owner Keith Scott told Fair Go his insurer, Zurich, wasn’t covering this. Zurich had accepted the claim but then pointed out the bill fell under Scotties’ policy excess, so this was Scott’s problem.
Unless he could make it Neilson’s. Scott said a lawyer friend suggested he take this to the Disputes Tribunal.
“His insurance should pay for it,” Scott told Fair Go.
Being sued by someone is covered by general liability insurance – it’s in most contents policies and that’s a good reason to have it even if you don’t own a whole lot of stuff.
In Neilson’s case, he had this covered in his business insurance. That also paid for the stolen jewellery and busted door, minus excess amounts, but Vero and his broker said no, don’t bother to claim for the civil action.
“I don’t remember the exact terminology but essentially it was intentional damage, in the sense I knew exactly what I was doing when I was doing it and damaged the vehicle,” Neilson says.
So it went for six months; two small businesses navigating Auckland Covid lockdowns while two very large businesses let them scrap it out.
In February, Swiss multinational Zurich declared a full year profit of $5.2 billion.
In March, when Fair Go started asking questions, Zurich swiftly reconsidered that $1700 bill.
Zurich acknowledges that this must be an upsetting time for both the jeweller Nielson and their customer, said spokesperson Nina Mills in a statement to Fair Go.
“They’ll pay it,” Scott told Fair Go. “Thank you for sorting it out. I don’t want to go to court.”
Meanwhile, Vero had also reconsidered and decided it would have stood by Neilson – if he had needed that.
“Our liability policy does have a clear exclusion for deliberate damage, but insurers can sometimes apply discretion and make exceptions. We were ready to assist Nick with his uninsured costs,” said a Vero spokesperson in a statement to Fair Go.
Neilson says it’s the right outcome considering he was defending his home, business and livelihood from a burglar.
“Where in this, when I had every good intention, should there be repercussions for that? If anybody chose to do what’s right versus what they can do, this would have never come to my letterbox.”
SHARE ME