Homeowners have lost a claim dispute over botched renovations after the industry ombudsman found their insurer correctly assessed that the damage was not covered.

The claimants said a builder they hired in 2023 caused “intentional and malicious” damage that left their outdoor area destroyed, a swimming pool’s retaining wall wrongly fitted, an improper roof installation and bad plumbing.

The homeowners insisted the damage should be covered under Auto & General’s home and contents policy, which responded to malicious damage, subject to conditions and exclusions.

They argued the insurer’s loss assessor filed a report that was inadequate and designed to facilitate a claim denial.

The claimants said the assessor spent only 30 minutes at their property and the report was riddled with errors, such as an incorrect roof type.

After a September 2024 assessment, Auto & General said the damage was caused by poor workmanship, which was not an insured event.

Related article: Tiny teeth lead to big bill, and a long row over settlement

Last year, the insurer arranged for another assessor to look again at the case, and it concluded the cause of damage was poor workmanship, faulty work and incomplete renovations.

In its dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the homeowners have failed to show a valid claim for malicious damage.

It says an expert witness report and rectification order from the Building Commission of NSW do not show the damage was malicious.

AFCA has also rejected the homeowners’ complaint that they did not receive policy documents from the insurer by email or post.

Records show the documents were sent to their nominated email address on August 11 2020 and renewal notices were emailed every year from 2021 to 2024.

“The renewal notices ... refer the complainants to, and provide a link to, the PDS,” the authority says. “They also included a phone number, email and postal address to contact for any questions or changes.”

Policy amendment documents were sent to the complainants’ nominated email address between 2022 and June last year. “This suggests that the complainants received the policy documents from the insurer and made changes to their policy.”

See the ruling here.