A matter of some gravity: dispute panel rejects pool exclusion
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has ruled Allianz was wrong to apply a “hydrostatic pressure” exclusion on a claim for a damaged swimming pool – because the insurer's definition referred to gravity.
A dispute arose when a homeowner reported her pool had been lifted out of position following heavy rain at the start of the year.
The woman provided the complaints authority with a statement from her builder, who said the “excessive deluge ... during the storm has caused a build-up of water around the sides and under the pool, which has forced the pool out of the ground slightly”.
Allianz referred to its engineer, who said hydrostatic pressure was exerted on the pool “due to a raised groundwater table influenced by the recent storm events”.
The insurer said its policy excluded damage caused by hydrostatic pressure, which it defined as “pressure exerted by a fluid due to gravity”.
The complaints authority also noted evidence from the claimant’s pool retailer, which said the damage was caused by an inundation of rainwater and floodwater that entered the ground, causing the pool to “uncontrollably hydraulic lift out of the ground”.
In its decision, the authority questions whether the damage meets the insurer's hydrostatic pressure definition, noting the lifting “was caused by the force of water pushing the pool upwards”.
“The insurer’s engineer called this ‘hydrostatic pressure’,” the authority said. “However, the force was not being exerted due to gravity.
“The force was pushing upwards, against the force of gravity. This force does not fit the policy’s definition of ‘hydrostatic pressure’.”
The decision notes policy documents included an example of hydrostatic pressure that “appears to match what happened to the complainant’s pool” – except the example pool was empty – but it says this “does not override the definition”.
AFCA says Allianz should accept the claim because the pool was damaged due to rainwater pushing it upwards.
Click here for the ruling.
For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine