Insurance companies could pursue Network Waitaki if they believe the lines company is to blame for the Lake Ohau fire that destroyed 48 homes and caused an estimated $35million damage last year.
Network Waitaki strongly rejects the findings of a Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) report released this week into the devastating fire of October 4, 2020.
But University of Otago faculty of law senior lecturer Dr Simon Connell said the question of negligence is raised by the investigation that pins the blaze on an electrical fault at a power pole on conservation land near Lake Ohau village.
‘‘If the report is correct about the cause of the fire, it raises the question of whether the lines were being properly maintained,’’ Dr Connell said yesterday.
‘‘I don’t think it answers the question as to whether there was negligence, but it certainly raises it.
If Fenz was right about what happened, whether Network Waitaki was liable in terms of negligence would depend on the question of what steps a reasonable lines company ought to have been taking in order to maintain its network, he said.
But getting a definitive answer to that question would require the company being taken to court.
Fenz fire investigators determined the fire was accidental and caused by an electrical short circuit on a power pole a few kilometres upwind of the village about 2.10am on the day of the fire, the Fenz report said.
Due to bolts with single nuts that had come loose, the crossarm detached from the pole and flipped, causing one of the power lines on the crossarm to touch a metal stay-arm, resulting in an electrical fault, it said.
The pole was double-nutted only after repairs were carried out.
Network Waitaki chief executive Geoff Douch yesterday repeated the Network Waitaki position that the fundamental conclusions reached by Fenz were incorrect.
If the fault had occurred in the way Fenz said it had, it would have been a permanent fault and the power would have stayed off at 2.10am. But the power was restored within seconds, indicating it was not a permanent fault at the location, Mr Douch said.
Further, company records showed the fault only generated seven amps of current.
A metal crossarm touching a conductor would have generated significantly more current than this, he said.
‘‘The sequence by which the fire is said to have started in the Fenz report could not have occurred and, indeed, is inconsistent with the fault records from our network systems,’’ he said.
Fenz risk reduction and investigations manager Todd O’Donoghue said Fenz was confident in its conclusions and the processes used to reach them.
A detailed investigation of the source of ignition was part of its process, but the organisation did not speculate further.
The report included input from numerous sources, not limited to but including data from Network Waitaki, and involved qualified specialists, he said.
Fenz had an operational services agreement with the Department of Conservation (Doc) which included cost recovery when fires originated on conservation land.
Doc national fire manager Aroha Hughes said it was too early to say what outcomes might arise from the Fenz report.
She confirmed Doc paid Fenz $1.33million in costs for fighting the fire.
