AFCA backs homeowner on storm damage claim
A property owner will be covered for storm damage after the complaints authority rejected her insurer’s assessment that wear and tear was to blame.
The claimant said water ingress from a March 2022 storm caused cracking to her ceiling, cornices and walls, and led to mould growth.
She engaged a roof expert who said the Dutch gable roof design above her master bedroom was susceptible to leakage, and the water ingress was “due to the sheer force of ... wind-driven rain entering the cavity through the Dutch gable lead flashing”.
But insurer Hollard’s builder found no points of ingress or storm-created openings, and said adhesive failure, poor construction methods and ongoing movement of the property caused the damage.
The builder could not explain why the ceilings had cracks.
A Hollard-appointed engineer said wind “under normal conditions” could have caused isolated ceiling cracks. They said mould grew due to elevated humidity and poor subfloor ventilation.
Hollard noted the homeowner undertook previous repairs for cracking and, while the storm may have worsened the damage, it was pre-existing and caused by poor maintenance.
| More from AFCA: ‘Exorbitant’ premium rise driven by insurer ‘managing market share’ |
In its ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the insurer failed to explain why some of the cracking appeared only after the storm.
It says suggestions of poor construction methods were based upon limited inspections of the roof cavity. It also notes Hollard did not rely on its exclusion relating to defective works.
AFCA says the storm was the probable cause of the internal damage, but not damage to concrete roof tiles.
“The storm event consisted of heavy rain, significantly more than had been experienced previously,” an AFCA ombudsman said.
“This has resulted in water ingress, likely through the flashing around the Dutch gables and TV antenna.
“I am satisfied that it is fair to accept this as water ingress through a storm-created opening, noting that flashing was in place.”
Hollard must obtain a new scope of works and pay the homeowner $5000 to cover the cost of expert reports and $1000 for stress caused by its claims handling.
See the ruling here.