www.insurancenews.com.au Open in urlscan Pro
172.105.181.187  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

POST /search

<form class="navbar-form" role="search" action="/search" method="post">
  <div class="input-group">
    <input type="text" class="form-control" id="search_term" name="k" placeholder="I'm looking for...">
    <input type="hidden" name="t" value="articles">
    <input type="hidden" name="o" value="1">
    <div class="input-group-btn">
      <button class="btn btn-default" type="submit"><i class="glyphicon glyphicon-search" aria-hidden="true"></i></button>
    </div>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

Go to Insurance News Home Page.
Toggle navigation Sections

 * News
 * Daily
 * Local
 * Corporate
 * Regulatory & Government
 * Life Insurance
 * The Professional
 * Insurtech
 * International
 * Analysis
 * The Broker


 * Subscribe to Insurance News
 * Read the magazine online
 * Got something to tell us?

Brought to you by:



Home / Daily / Insurer must pay claimant for storm repairs to home


INSURER MUST PAY CLAIMANT FOR STORM REPAIRS TO HOME

22 March 2023



A homeowner whose property was damaged by a storm will be compensated for her
losses after a dispute ruling determination overruled her insurer’s decision to
decline the claim.

The complainant lodged a claim on March 2, last year, after the home had been
damaged on the same day.

An IAG-appointed builder, referred to as BB, inspected the property on March 8
but only provided a completed report nearly three months later.

The claimant said she phoned the insurer weekly for updates on the report’s
progress but was only provided “conflicting advice” on what she should do.

The complainant said some IAG employees told her to arrange repairs because the
insurer was “very backlogged” with claims from catastrophic flooding in NSW and
Queensland in late February. She elected to conduct some repairs, saying leaking
water was “making the damage worse”.

IAG denied that its employees told the policyholder to conduct repairs and said
it had grounds to deny the claim because she did not have the authority to
commence the works without the insurer’s approval.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said the home insurance
policy stipulated that if the property was damaged, the insured “must do
everything reasonable to prevent further loss or damage”.

“In the circumstances, it would have been unreasonable to require the
complainant to leave her home in a state of disrepair for so long,” AFCA said.

The insurer alleged that the homeowner did not allow it to inspect the damage
because it had been repaired. It also said that she failed her duty of
disclosure by not informing it that the property was being used as a beauty
salon, although it elected not to argue this point further.

AFCA said the insurer’s allegations were “not true,” noting that IAG had
inspected the property before the repairs occurred and had no further
inspections planned. It also highlighted that the complainant had offered
photographs and videos of the damage to the insurer, which it said were “not
required”.

The ruling said the insurer was not entitled to decline the claim and required
it to pay the “reasonable cost of repairs”.

The complainant provided a list of quotes and invoices, which showed the total
cost of repairs at $123,416. IAG disagreed, saying that BB’s report indicated
“minor” damage to the home, with repairs costs amounting to $4368, which it
reduced to $3368 after applying the $1000 claims excess.

AFCA noted that BB’s report did not include repairs to the lower level of the
house, which had been inundated with at least an inch of water over the flooring
for six days after the storm.

“It is implausible that the lower level could be undamaged after being covered
by an inch of water for almost a week,” it said.

“The insurer has not explained why its settlement offer does not include the
cost of repairing this area.”

AFCA speculated that the insurer chose not to include the area because it had
been used for the beauty salon. It said the insurer was not entitled to ignore
this damage without a valid reason.

The ruling also highlighted that BB had not included any repairs to the flooring
and quoted costs at a “much lower” rate than the claimant’s contractors.

“I believe BB’s quote includes only a small fraction of the damage caused by the
storm. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to settle the claim based on BB’s
quote,” AFCA said.

It said that the policyholder’s quote had been “more reliable” and agreed that
it was fair to settle the claim at $122,416 plus interest from two weeks after
BB’s report was filed.

Click here for the ruling.

Brought to you by:

Brought to you by:


RELATED ARTICLES

 1. Broking director charged over alleged misuse of client monies »
 2. Productivity Commission criticises premium subsidies, calls for cyclone pool
    phase-out »
 3. INsight podcast: AFCA complaints surge causes dispute delays »
 4. Envest acquires majority stake in Wellington Underwriting »
 5. Good coffee trumps wild weather risks for Australians on the move »
 6. Insurer must pay for tenant's mould-damaged contents »

Brought to you by:

Brought to you by:


POPULAR THIS WEEK

 1. 15 March 2023Allianz Commercial head named for Australia »
 2. 16 March 2023'Deeply concerned': AFCA criticises industry as dispute delays
    spiral »
 3. 14 March 2023Terminal cancer patient loses dispute over unpaid policy
    renewal »
 4. 15 March 2023Claimant wins dispute over 'sudden' cracks that appeared after
    quake »
 5. 21 March 2023Insurer must pay for tenant's mould-damaged contents »


SECTIONS

 * News
 * Local
 * Corporate
 * Regulatory & Government
 * Life Insurance
 * The Professional
 * Insurtech
 * International
 * Analysis
 * Breaking News


ABOUT

 * About Us
 * Contact Us
 * Advertising
 * Link to Us
 * Privacy Policy
 * Conditions of Use
 * Help
 * Enhance your experience


OUR SITES

 * Insurance News - The Magazine
 * INsight, an Insurance News podcast

   


 * SUBSCRIBE

   



Copyright © 2022 Insurance News Pty Ltd.

Back to top