A homeowner has lost a claim dispute after the complaints authority found hail caused no notable damage to his roof. 

The claimant said the hailstorm in October 2021 dented and exposed asbestos fibres in his corrugated fibro sheeting roof, creating a health hazard.

He referred to a report from an asbestos tester stating the fibres were visible from the ends of the sheeting, and said his appointed builder found impact marks on the guttering and ridge capping. 

Insurer Youi acknowledged that hail hit the roof but said it did not cause damage because it only removed a surface layer containing mould. It said the roof was still fit for purpose.

The insurer appointed an engineer who noted the roof was about 50 years old and had degraded over time. The engineer said the roof had a weak surface layer due to a breakdown of cement, which led to mould growth and discolouration. 

They said when the hail hit, it removed the surface layer but did not further damage the underlayer of the fibro sheet.  

In its dispute decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says the roof was “in a poor condition prior to the hail” and the impact marks were “minor and not visible, other than at close range”.

For hail damage to be covered under the policy, it would have to be “something that harms or impairs the value or usefulness of the item”.  

The evidence shows the hail removed mould, which caused the roof to have a lighter colour in some parts, AFCA says.

It notes no expert reports suggested the hail penetrated the roof or reduced its effectiveness as a waterproof and structural layer.  

AFCA questions the insured’s assessment that the hail caused asbestos fibres to emerge, saying the breakdown of the fibro sheeting was a more likely cause.  

It says the insured’s asbestos expert checked the property two years after the hailstorm and did not state whether asbestos levels in the roof were higher than expected in a structure of that age.  

“Given the expert evidence, the age of the roof and that it is close to the end of its serviceable life, I am not persuaded that, in this case, the hail caused any health risk to the complainant,” an AFCA ombudsman said.  

“Even if it does, I am not persuaded the storm and its impact was the dominant or effective cause of this. I accept the roof was severely dilapidated and in poor condition prior to the event.

“Either way, I do not consider the insurer is liable.”  

See the decision here.