Quake Damage Claims Dismissed Over Previous Faults
Quake Damage Claims Dismissed Over Previous Faults
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
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
Author: Paige Estritori
Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.
Share this news item:
Rate this article
0 Comments
The periodic amount paid for the purchase of insurance.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.