Hollard has been ordered to pay a home cover claim after the industry ombudsman backed a mother’s assertion that a sewage backflow was triggered by her children’s toys getting stuck down a drain.

The insurer rejected the woman’s claim after sewage suddenly rose through her shower drain and damaged her bathroom, laundry, hallway and kitchen.

It argued the damage resulted from the gradual invasion of tree roots into the sewer line, and this was excluded under its policy.

But the homeowner said her plumber removed toys that were blocking the main sewer line the day after the incident, immediately restoring normal flow.

And the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has sided with her, despite the fact neither she nor her plumber provided photos of the toys blocking the pipes.

The claimant said she immediately disposed of the toys, given they were covered in sewerage.

The ombudsman says the plumber “was the first expert on-site and he was the one who unblocked the line”. His account corroborated statements from two neighbours who helped during the incident and saw children’s toys being removed from the drain.

Related article: AFCA backs travel insurer’s Red Sea rejection

AFCA is unconvinced by the insurer’s reports on the cause and notes there were no further sewer overflows after the toys were removed, despite tree roots remaining in the pipe.

“If the tree roots found were the cause of the overflow, then it does not explain why the property did not have further instances of overflow.”

AFCA has also rejected the insurer’s view that blockage by foreign objects such as toys would be excluded under a maintenance exclusion.

“There is nothing to suggest the complainant was aware of this blockage until the overflow,” the ombudsman said.

“This means she could not have known there was a blockage problem until the overflow.”

Hollard must also cover the homeowner’s expert report costs and pay $1000 compensation for non-financial loss.

AFCA notes the complainant, a recently divorced mother caring for two young children, suffered stress because of the insurer’s claim handling.

See the ruling here.