Insurer Penalized for Mishandling Storm Damage Claim

1

The homeowner reported his damages following severe storms that hit in February 2022. The insurance company consulted a builder, referred to as PB, to evaluate the property damages.

PB's assessment claimed that the home had pre-existing damage and lacked waterproof integrity. Specific issues highlighted included clogged gutters, cracked and missing roof tiles, and an unconventional roofing method that permitted water intrusion.

According to PB, the storm did not directly damage the roof but worsened existing issues. This led Auto & General to deny the claim and revoke the policy in October 2022, accusing the homeowner of misrepresenting the property's condition as "good" when the policy began and during its renewal.

The homeowner contested the insurer’s stance, arguing that it was unjust. He presented a separate builder’s report, along with written statements and photographs, which demonstrated a lack of prior wall or ceiling damage.

The policyholder attributed the defects cited by PB to partial make-safe work, asserting that the gutters had been regularly maintained prior to the storm. He also mentioned the emergence of storm-induced mold in sections of his home.

While Auto & General did ultimately reverse its initial claim denial and arrange for a cash settlement the preceding October, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has decreed that the company must retract its claims of disclosure breach and issue a formal apology.

The AFCA identified “multiple erroneous assertions by PB alleging the complainant had neglected to maintain the property appropriately before the storm,” for which the homeowner provided contradicting proof.

The authority’s ombudsman commented, "I am satisfied the complainant reasonably believed that his home was in good condition and waterproof at the time of policy renewal in July 2021. Moreover, I think a reasonable person would agree with the complainant’s evaluation of his home's condition."

They further stated, "I conclude that the complainant did not misrepresent the property's state. Thus, the insurer made a mistake in deciding to cancel the policy."

The insurer has been directed to pay $2000 to cover non-financial losses due to its oversight in investigating the homeowner’s challenges to PB’s report, failure to acknowledge present mould, and incomplete make-safe actions.

The AFCA concluded that Auto & General should have sought a second, independent evaluation of PB’s findings. The resultant protracted claim process subjected the policyholder and his family to undue stress and anxiety.

The original source of this matter was reported by the Insurance News.

Published:Thursday, 23rd Jan 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

NSW Introduces Strata Law Reforms to Strengthen Community Governance 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori On 27 October 2025, the New South Wales (NSW) Government implemented significant reforms to strata laws, aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and financial management within strata schemes. These changes are designed to better meet the evolving needs of strata communities across the state. - read more

Strata Insurance Affordability Holds Steady Despite Rising House Insurance Costs 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori In its 2025 State of the Strata Market report, CHU has revealed that strata insurance premiums have experienced a modest increase of 2.8%, rising to an average of $981 per lot in the year leading up to June 2025. This increment is notably lower than the 14% surge observed in house insurance premiums during the same period. - read more

Consumer Advocates Push for Ban on Strata Insurance Commissions in NSW 19 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori Consumer advocacy groups, including the Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) and the Owners Corporation Network (OCN), are urging the New South Wales (NSW) Government to implement a ban on commissions related to strata insurance. They argue that such commissions create conflicts of interest and compromise transparency within the strata management sector. - read more

AFCA Criticises TAL for Unfair Termination of Income Protection Benefits 16 Nov 2025: Paige Estritori The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled against TAL, a prominent life insurer, for terminating a policyholder's income protection benefits without prior notice. This decision underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness in the management of insurance claims. - read more