Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage

1

The complainant had argued that the storm-damaged items on the patio were enclosed enough to avoid the "open air" restriction, but the AFCA found the blinds in place did not ensure an enclosed space, lacking proper lockability. However, the authority noted the policy's language was not explicit in imposing the 10% limitation due to its placement under "additional benefits," which suggested the opposite of a restriction.

Moreover, the AFCA criticized the insurer for failing to present evidence that the policyholder neglected reasonable care of the items. In acknowledging the complainant's hardships, AFCA highlighted that the year-long exposure to mould had affected living conditions, despite the insurer disputing health impacts.

As part of the resolution, AFCA instructed a $4000 payment for non-financial losses, emphasizing that proof of health issues was unnecessary to confirm that the claimant's peace of mind had been compromised. The requirement for the insurer now includes engaging an expert for a comprehensive assessment of the storm and mould damage.

While the insurer can deduct the $1558 already issued as an ex-gratia payment and any policy excess, the decision underscores the necessity of precise and consumer-friendly contract wording to avoid customer disputes.

This case serves as a critical reminder for insurance companies to adopt straightforward language and place important limitations in unambiguous policy sections. As companies reassess contract terms, consumers might see increased clarity in coverage options, potentially averting future misunderstandings.

Published:Monday, 23rd Jun 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more

Australia Sees Dramatic Drop in Catastrophe Losses 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Last year saw Australia's insured catastrophe losses plummet to just $500 million, marking the lowest level since 2004, according to Aon's latest Climate and Catastrophe Insight report. Notably, the Insurance Council of Australia reported no disasters for the year, a situation not seen since 1982. This comes in stark contrast to 2023, when disaster-related insured losses soared to over $3.6 billion. - read more

Half a Million Australian Homes at Risk of Becoming Uninsurable, Climate Agency Reports 21 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Climate Change Authority has released a concerning report highlighting that, without immediate intervention, extreme natural hazards could cost Australians approximately $8.7 billion annually by 2050. The report urges the federal government to spearhead a comprehensive and well-coordinated national adaptation agenda to mitigate these risks. - read more

Red Sea Unrest: Insurer Denies Cruise Cancellation Claim 20 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori An Australian travel policyholder has been denied a claim payout after his planned cruise in the Red Sea was cancelled due to conflict. The insurer, Southern Cross, invoked its policy's war and violence exclusion clause, as disturbances in the region were linked to military activities, rendering the claim invalid. - read more