A man has lost his bid to claim $100,000 for 25 storage containers full of clothing he failed to recover from a dry cleaner after a sewerage pipe burst at his property.

The man, a restaurateur, first lodged a claim for the burst pipe under his Chubb home and contents policy in September 2018, which was accepted.

Later, he said there may also be water damage to his clothing but declined to use the dry cleaner recommended by the insurer. A Chubb contractor accompanied the man to his preferred cleaner to drop off the clothing, and advised him Chubb would no longer be responsible for the apparel.

The dry cleaner closed down later that month and the clothes - including three fur coats the man said were worth $48,000 - were never retrieved despite multiple messages warning they would be disposed of if not collected. The man then submitted a second insurance claim in late January 2019 via his broker for the lost clothing.

Chubb declined that claim, saying a “failure to protect” policy exclusion applied.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) upheld that decision, saying it “considers it entirely reasonable that the complainant could have found time to collect $100,000 worth of clothing to prevent it being disposed of”.

“While the loss of clothing worth a reportedly significant sum is unfortunate, it is clear the complainant did not use all reasonable means to protect his contents when he knew they were going to be disposed of,” the ruling says.

Chubb’s “failure to protect” exclusion wording was “very clear,” stating that loss will not be covered if the complainant failed to use “all reasonable means” to protect his property.

AFCA noted the man made the choice to use his own dry cleaner rather than allow Chubb to arrange dry cleaning. Chubb’s contractor had initially taken steps to use a different cleaner but was contacted by the policyholder and instructed not to.

Signs were on display at the chosen dry cleaner for some time in the lead up to it closing, and there were multiple messages left by a staff member during January 2019 advising the man the factory was being cleared out and the owner would throw out the storage containers full of clothes if he did not collect them.

The man did not respond to most messages but replied “can’t do anything without my insurance broker” to one. AFCA says this is evidence he had seen the messages.

“He was clearly given multiple opportunities to collect the clothes and yet he chose not to,” AFCA said. “The panel is satisfied the insurer has established that the exclusion applies.”

AFCA also said the alleged value of the clothing was not “fully, or even mostly substantiated”.

Only a short list of items was provided to the man’s broker and only about $10,300 of receipts he produced matched the list, Chubb said. Receipts for the fur coats were never provided, and the “deluxe contents” coverage section of the policy had a limit of $5000 cover for furs.

Click here to read the full ruling.