Landlords who claimed under a contents policy for damage to timber floorboards have lost a dispute before the complaints authority, which says the flooring is part of the building.

The property owners incurred about $9800 of damage last May when a bath overflowed in a unit insured under a residential strata plan.

They did not claim against the strata policy, which had a $25,000 excess for floor-related damage, and instead turned to their landlord policy with Blue Zebra.

Blue Zebra declined the claim because the floor was not considered contents.  

In its ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority notes the policy did not define “floating floorboard”, but it says the dictionary definition is a “floor that sits on supports on top of the underlying floor structure, in contrast to a floor that is nailed or glued down”.  

The policyholders argued the floorboards were a “fixture” of the building and were not insured under the strata policy.  

AFCA disagrees, saying the landlord policy stated flooring was part of the building, and that if they claimed under the strata policy, the loss would have been covered.

“The complainants say that because the strata policy has a high excess, the timber floor is not considered insured,” an authority ombudsman said. “I do not accept this.

“The exchanged documents show that the timber floor would be accepted if the claim was lodged, but it was not economic to claim on the policy as the loss was less than the deductible. This does not mean the item is uninsured.”  

AFCA has also rejected the claimants’ bid to have rental losses covered, again because the damage was to the building, not contents.  

See the ruling here.