Hollard has been ordered to pay a complainant more than $225,000 after its appointed tradies damaged items in his house.

The insurer sent a building company to repair tree-fall damage at the man’s home – which he shared with his father – but the workers caused a “dust infection” after failing to adequately cover household items.

A restorer later found the contents were beyond repair due to dust damage.  

Hollard accepted responsibility and paid the man’s father $243,751 for the contents damage, including about $50,000 for the complainant’s items.  

But the complainant said he was entitled to a larger payout under his own contents policy.

He said the insurer’s assessor disposed of – and failed to keep an inventory of – his items, including a cryptocurrency wallet containing $578,824, which would currently be worth nearly $2 million.

The insurer offered to pay an additional $68,748 under the father’s contents policy, reaching the maximum sum insured.  

Hollard argued it should not have to pay under the complainant’s policy, which was for $300,000, because it had been erroneously set up at the same address as his father’s.  

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the complainant’s policy was fairly established.  

“The insurer’s position ignores the fact that it permitted the complainant to incept a contents policy separate to that of [the father’s] policy at the same insured address, with a higher, standalone sum insured,” AFCA said.

“It also received separate premium payments from [the father] and from the complainant.”  

It also notes that “more fundamentally, the loss sustained by the complainant occurred outside the parameters of either policy. It was not due to a claimable loss under the [product disclosure statement].” Instead, it was caused by the negligence of the insurer’s builder and assessor.  

The complainant wanted AFCA’s maximum award – $631,500 – for his loss.  

But AFCA says there is no evidence the assessor threw out the cryptocurrency wallet or that the man could not access it again, given cryptocurrency can be restored under certain circumstances.

It has awarded the complainant $219,657 plus interest for missing items and $6300 compensation for non-financial losses.

See the ruling here.