A gin school and distillery operator who argued Cyclone Alfred public warnings and alerts effectively kept customers away has lost a dispute over trading losses. 

The complainant, who held business interruption cover, maintained Alfred disruptions led to prevention of access to its premises from March 5-10, 2025 causing revenue losses of $27,405. 

The wording includes cover where an “order” by a government, public or statutory authority prevents access to a premises provided it results from the threat of damage to property within a 50km radius. 

Communications about the cyclone included emergency alerts and public safety messages from state disaster co-ordination centres or police, and government officials urging people to stay home or close premises. 

Media reported on school, airport, road and transport closures and the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads website gave updates on road closures and public transport service suspensions. 

The complainant argued that an “order” doesn’t have to be mandatory, it’s sufficient that there’s clear and official directives, even if framed as advice or guidance, and the prevention of access clause should not be interpreted narrowly. 

“The widespread business closures, suspension of transport, airport shutdowns, and emergency service responses demonstrate that these were not mere suggestions but effectively operated as functional orders by authority – and were treated as such by the public, businesses, and critical services alike,” the complainant said. 

QBE declined the claim as there was no information showing physical damage to property in the vicinity that would have been coverable under the policy, and no official order was made due to the threat of property damage within the required radius. 

It argued advice, safety warnings and guidance from local councils, the government or other authorities were not “orders’ because compliance was not mandatory. If followed, they may have hindered people accessing the premises, but didn’t by themselves prevent access. 

“To the extent roads were closed, that was due to the threat Alfred posed to people’s safety, not the threat of property damage within a 50km radius,” it said. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said the Macquarie Dictionary defines “order” as an authoritative direction, injunction, command or mandate and agreed the insurer was entitled to deny the claim.  

AFCA also found the insurer completed its investigations and denied the claim less than two months after lodgement, rejecting a further complaint about an unreasonable delay. 

The decision is here.