Lundy adviser proposed life cover lift, court told

By PAULA OLIVER

An attempt to increase the life insurance cover of murder victim Christine Lundy was made on the advice of the family's insurance adviser, a court was told yesterday.

The adviser told the court that he initiated the contact that led Mark and Christine Lundy to review their life insurance policies in June 2000. He advised them to increase their life cover to $1 million.

He said he told them there would be no cover until the policy document was issued, and that at the time of the deaths of Christine Lundy and her daughter, he did not believe that the insurer had issued the policy document.

Thirty-eight-year-old Christine and her daughter Amber, 7, were found murdered in their home on August 29, 2000.

Husband and father Mark Lundy is standing trial in the High Court in Palmerston North for their murders.

Last week the prosecution told the court that shortly before Christine Lundy was murdered, her life insurance cover was increased from $200,000 to $500,000.

The prosecution described Mark Lundy as a man in desperate financial trouble at the time of the murders.

Defence lawyer Mike Behrens, QC, told the court in his opening statement that he would dispute whether the insurance cover had actually been increased at the time of the deaths.

Bruce Parsons, a representative of Tower Financial Advisory Services, yesterday told the court he had handled the Lundys' life insurance since 1987.

The policies had been gradually increased every three years.

He told Crown prosecutor Peter Butler that after initiating a June 2000 meeting with the Lundys and hearing about their wine venture, he recommended an increase in their life cover to $1 million.

But after medical examinations, it became apparent that the couple would have to pay higher premiums because of their health condition.

Mr Parsons obtained a quote for an increase to $500,000, and visited the Lundy home on August 25, 2000.

The Lundys opted for the cheaper $500,000 policy, he said.

Christine Lundy signed a cheque for the first month's premium and, together with Mark Lundy, they filled in forms.

Mr Parsons said the cover would not commence until Tower issued a policy document, which usually took "a couple of days".

Asked if he told his clients that, he said: "I believe I did."

Christine Lundy was killed four days later. Eventually Mr Parsons advised Mark Lundy to begin the claim process.

He told the court that Tower had not yet made a payout.

Under cross-examination, Mr Parsons said he did not believe that Tower had issued the policy document at the time of the deaths.

Later in the day architectural designer Barry Nix told the court that Mark Lundy had approached him in January last year to ask for some concept drawings of a new home.

Mr Nix said Lundy told him he planned to buy land near the cemetery where Christine and Amber were buried.

He wanted a home with plenty of room for entertaining and a wine cellar.

Asked if he discussed the fees his business would charge, Mr Nix said Lundy asked him for a blank piece of paper. He signed it and told Mr Nix to put a figure there, he would pay it.

Lundy appeared jovial, he said. The drawings done a week later would have cost $400,000 to build, he told the court.

In his cross-examination, Mr Behrens suggested to Mr Nix that Lundy had asked for the size of the home in the drawings to be reduced.

Mr Nix said he could not remember that.

Mr Behrens said Mr Nix had a friend (Mr Lundy) trying to get on with his life. Mr Nix replied that was "how we would have viewed it initially".

Earlier in the morning, the accountant who handled the finances of the Lundys' kitchen business, David Hopping, told the court that the business traded profitably. It had a tight budget. The couple lived off drawings from the business, he said.

Defence lawyer Steve Winter asked Mr Hopping about Mark Lundy's computer skills.

Mr Hopping told the court that from Lundy's comments it seemed he had little to do with computers.

He said the business was in debt to its supplier, but there were no indications it was "going under".