Ombudsman backs insurer as feathers fly over ‘nuisance’ cockatoos
A landlord who claimed for more than $100,000 of property damage caused by “frantic” cockatoos has lost his bid for a payout because his policy will not respond to the birds’ barrage of attacks.
The property owner said sulphur-crested cockatoos chewed and scratched through timber window frames and walls at two homes on the same street.
He lodged separate claims for repairs costing about $71,731 and $32,835, but insurer Suncorp rejected them, referring to exclusions for damage caused by vermin.
The claimant said the landlord policy covered “public disturbances” and under a broad interpretation of the term this would apply to the birds. He argued the cockatoos were a “continuous nuisance”.
In a dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the policy categorises “public disturbance” alongside events such as “riot” and “civil commotion”.
It notes the policy gives “damage caused by a violent crowd moving down the street” as an example, and says this implies the benefit would apply only to “a group of people behaving antisocially and the fallout which might accompany such conduct”.
It acknowledges animals “are potentially capable of causing a public disturbance” but says this does not apply to the claim.
| More from AFCA: Authority rejects premium hike, notification complaint |
The authority also confirms that an accidental damage provision does not respond, because it only covers damage caused by the policyholder, a family member or “non-paying guests”.
And it has dismissed the claimant’s suggestion that rain and wind caused the cockatoos to “become frantic” and the loss should be considered under storm cover.
“The damage is best described as ‘animal damage’. Some policies cover this damage. The complainant’s policy does not.”
AFCA says Suncorp “could have handled the matter better”, noting the vermin exclusion was inapplicable because there was no claimable loss in any event.
“The insurer also denied the claim because there was ‘no insured event for pet damage’, though it is clear the cockatoos were not pets.”
However, AFCA is “not persuaded the insurer’s actions caused unusual stress, delay or inconvenience for the complainant”.
See the ruling here.
From the latest Insurance News magazine: The ticking time bombs under our kitchen sinks, and how to stop them exploding