A policyholder who claimed for storm damage to his garage will receive a payout after the complaints authority dismissed his insurer’s suggestion the structure had been undermined by wear and tear and poor design.

Insurer Allianz accepted there was damage to the roof, noting its building consultant’s assessment that two solar panels had dropped and some timber trusses and outer concrete board had been affected.  

The building consultant suggested the damage resulted from strong wind and storm impacts.

But the insurer also referred to a report from its engineering consultant that said the damage was caused not by the storm but by faulty design of the trusses, which weakened the roof over time.  

The engineering consultant added that modifications to make the roof cavity into a storage space and the installation of solar panels contributed to the structure’s weakened state.   

It pointed to an analysis showing the wind strength was less than 60% of the building’s maximum tolerance, and said it should have withstood the gusts.  

The insurer relied on its exclusion for losses resulting from gradual deterioration and defects caused by faulty design and poor workmanship.  

However, an Australian Financial Complaints Authority adjudicator has found fault with the engineering consultant’s findings and says relying on its report to decline cover is unfair.  

AFCA says the consultant referred to “nail plate failure” in the roof’s trusses but has not provided enough evidence this occurred. It adds that there is not enough explanation of how the timber structure’s “creep” was bad enough to be the dominant cause of the loss.  

The complainant, who has a mechanical engineering background, said measurements featured in the engineering consultant’s analysis were incorrect. AFCA notes Allianz did not respond to the concern and says this suggests the garage owner is correct.  

The adjudicator says the consultant “refers to the nature of the damage being consistent with long-term failure. However, it has not explained how and on what basis it came to this view. 

“I acknowledge [the] reference to wind speeds on the date of loss not being adequate to cause damage to the garage roof. 

“However, I note this view rests strongly on [the consultant’s] opinions regarding the roof’s construction, which ... I have not been found to be compelling.” 

Allianz must arrange a scope of work and either repair the roof or cash settle the claim based on the quoted amount, plus a 15% contingency. 

Click here for the ruling.

From the latest Insurance News magazine: 50 years on, we look back at Darwin's Christmas catastrophe, when Cyclone Tracy caused ‘almost inconceivable’ damage