This is the story of a Northland man who's house burnt down while he was over 400km away. The insurer is refusing to pay out claiming he started the fire himself remotely. 

'He said he was in fact under-insured when his house burnt down, which would make him a pretty lame arsonist. He pointed out that after years of legal battles he was in fact acquitted of the arson charges that were laid against him, and that the Crown had never been able to show that the complicated printer-ignition method actually happened. Contrary to the insurer's allegations, he said, he wasn't in serious financial difficulty before the fire.'

Well, that looks like a fascinating case. 

The judgment described in the the document at this link (on the Ministry of Justice register of Judicial Decisions Online) makes interesting, if somewhat depressing reading, if you care about financial advice in New Zealand. There are so many questions that could be asked it is hard to know where to start. 

Why was initial commission payable on this case in the first place? 

Are the provisions for keeping a policy in-force too generous or the provisions for reinstating a policy without medical evidence too generous, given the confusion that so many different letters and reports caused? 

Was this one of those cases where the claimant's judgment was so clouded by their own needs that they forgot their experience? Or was their view that AMP should genuinely pay the claim?