Rolls of copper wire that were stolen from a house are not covered under an additional benefit for unfixed home building materials, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has found.

It was fair for Allianz to decline the claim, lodged in December, because the wire was not intended to form part of the home, nor was it “contents”. 

“The insurer applied the policy terms reasonably when it decided the stolen copper wire was not covered,” AFCA said in a dispute ruling. 

Allianz’s claim notes recorded the homeowners saying the five and a half rolls of copper wire were to be used at another property for solar panel installation. 

The policyholder said some of the wire was used for garage and solar connections on the insured home, and they were keeping the rest for solar panels on another unit, which would have used about half a roll.

More from AFCA: Family fails in bid for total loss payout over death contamination

An AFCA ombudsman says the remaining five rolls were “left over” and their planned use was unclear.

“They do not appear to be intended to form part of the complainants’ home or another property. In the absence of a clear intended use, I am satisfied they are not intended to form part of the home.” 

The Allianz policy listed items the insurer did not consider contents, such as unfixed home building materials and uninstalled home fittings. There was also a list of fixtures and structural improvements the insurer considered “part of the home”. AFCA says a common theme is that they are attached to the home or land, but there “is no dispute” the copper was not fixed to either.

“I accept rolls of copper wire are part of a home when fixed/attached to a home. However, in this case ... I am not satisfied the five and a half rolls of copper wire are part of the ‘home’ as defined in the policy,” the ombudsman said. 

“Copper wire rolls stolen from the complainants’ property are building materials and were not fixed or installed. Therefore, I am satisfied the five and a half rolls are not ‘contents’ as defined.” 

See the ruling here.