A WA homeowner’s storm damage claim must be accepted after the complaints authority determined her insurer cannot rely on a pre-existing damage exclusion.  

The woman lodged the claim after a September 2023 storm damaged her property’s roof, ceiling and some contents.  

She said it also affected a solar hot water system and a satellite dish, and left the home without power. 

RAC Insurance appointed an engineer to inspect the damage. The consultant said the home had been in a poor condition, was inadequately maintained and appeared not to be built to relevant standards.

The engineer said the storm’s 94km/h gusts “would have been enough to cause the observed damage due to the condition of the property”, but if the home was “reasonably maintained” the damage would not have occurred.  

RAC Insurance also appointed a builder who agreed there were “multiple maintenance and building defects”.  

But in its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the insurer’s findings were not persuasive enough to apply its pre-existing damage exclusion.  

It says the experts failed to refer to building codes the home failed to meet, and added there probably were none, given the property was built at least 80 years ago.  

It says RAC Insurance failed to show any “structural failings” or defects that could be considered the primary cause of the damage.  

“The insurer’s expert evidence falls short of establishing that the claimed damage was caused by an excluded peril,” an authority ombudsman said.

“I acknowledge that the house had some pre-existing damage, wear and tear and maintenance issues, but I am not persuaded the insurer’s expert reports establish that any of these issues were the proximate cause of the claimed damage.

“The storm event on September 13 2023 was significant and caused damage to many properties in the area.

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the storm was the proximate cause of the loss to the complainant’s property.”  

AFCA has ordered RAC Insurance to engage a new engineer for an updated scope of works and to pay the complainant’s temporary accommodation costs.  

Click here for the ruling.