Quake Damage Claims Dismissed Over Previous Faults

3

The company behind the claim stated that the properties were impacted by a 5.4-magnitude earthquake that occurred in November 2018. Although the earthquake's epicenter was approximately 45 kilometers away from the buildings, Geoscience Australia specified the evident damage radius to be no more than 27 kilometers from the epicenter.

In their defense, the claimant's engineering expert conceded that the buildings were situated outside the primary damage zone but contended that the earthquake’s vibrations had unleashed energy beneath the geological formations on which the houses stood.

The expert identified "preexisting or dormant conditions" in the properties, including previously repaired damage which, according to him, reopened due to ground movement prompted by the quake, also leading to the manifestation of new fractures.

Meanwhile, Allianz, the insurance provider, enlisted a forensic civil and structural engineer who assessed the damages. His findings revealed brickwork fissures in multiple sections of one property, referred to as House H, and evident cracks within the garage of the second property, termed House P, in addition to a separation between a storeroom and the home.

The engineer hired by Allianz attributed the damage to prolonged foundation instability and deterioration of the mortar used in the brickwork, rather than to the seismic event.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) upheld the insurer’s position, noting that both engineers corroborated the presence of damage similar to what was being contested even before the 2018 earthquake, specifically in House H.

AFCA further mentioned that updates made to certain rooms within the house remained unaffected, while external brickwork conditions pointed towards significant wear and tear, contributing to the losses. Comparable remarks were also made in regard to House P.

"While both experts agree it is conceivable for House H to incur earthquake-related damage under ideal conditions despite its location outside the designated impact radius, the insurer's expert refuted the existence of such conditions in this case," stated the adjudicator from AFCA.

"Even if the earthquake were recognized as being a proximate cause of the damage to House H, it would coexist with other excluded factors (wear and tear, prolonged structural movement)."

"Consequently, the insurer maintains the right to invoke those exclusions as a basis for denying the claim," AFCA concluded.

Published:Thursday, 1st Aug 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Strengthening Agricultural Insurance: Rural Affinity and Munich Re's Renewed Partnership 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori Rural Affinity has renewed its partnership with Munich Re Specialty - Global Markets under a new five-year agreement, continuing a collaboration that began in 2006. This renewed alliance aims to support Rural Affinity's efforts to expand its agricultural insurance offerings across Australia and introduce new products leveraging technology and innovation. - read more

AFCA Mandates Insurer Payout for Engine Overheating Incident 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a truck owner whose insurance claim was initially denied following an engine overheating incident. This decision underscores the complexities surrounding insurance claims related to driver negligence and mechanical failures. - read more

AFCA Supports Insurer in Truck Theft Claim Denial 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently upheld an insurer's decision to deny a truck theft claim, citing misrepresentation of the insured's insurance history. This ruling highlights the critical importance of accurate disclosure when obtaining insurance coverage. - read more

AFCA Sides with Freight Company in Dangerous Goods Disclosure Case 10 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a freight company in a dispute over the disclosure of transporting dangerous goods. This decision provides valuable insights into the obligations of transport companies regarding insurance disclosures. - read more