The Routs brought the proceedings against Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited (previously AMI Insurance).
Under their policy with AMI, the Routs' house was insured for the full replacement cost for the floor area of their home, but not their land.
Southern Response accepted the policy, but disputed the extent of the damage.
Until February this year, Southern Response consistently said the property was not economically repairable and constituted a demolish and rebuild plan. However, the company later contended it was a simple repair.
Lengthy negotiations between the couple and Southern Response continued and varied, until the Routs indicated at the High Court hearing that total rebuild costs were in excess of $1.29 million.
Justice Gendall said since March this year, Southern Response elected to offer the Routs a cash settlement on a repair basis rather than on the basis of a rebuild or the purchase of another property. It attempted to settle by making a payment, rather than having any actual work done.
Justice Gendall found the house was uneconomic to repair and said the Routs succeeded and failed in part with their claim.
He ruled that when they rebuilt their house on another site or bought another house, they would be entitled to incur costs of doing so up to a maximum figure of $673,330, less the $113,850 already received from EQC.
However, their alternative claim for relief by way of a cash payment of rebuild costs of $760,327 or their amended figure of approximately $1.2 million was dismissed.