A Suncorp customer who did not disclose that his wife ran a beauty salon from their home has lost a storm damage claim dispute.

The salon had an A-frame sign and unique logo, an app for bookings and social media pages. But the man answered “no” when asked: “Is there business signage on the property? Do customers visit the property?”  

Suncorp declined the January storm claim, saying that if the man had answered “yes” he would not have been able to finish buying the policy online.

In its dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says Suncorp’s question was “clear and unambiguous”.

“I am satisfied ... the complainant misrepresented the business at the insured property,” an authority ombudsman said.

The man’s wife said the brows, lashes and waxing business was a hobby, she only practised on family, friends and neighbours on a barter basis, and there was no Australian Business Number.

“The complainant says it was just a couple of friends coming over getting their legs waxed a couple of nights a week and the business did not make any money,” the AFCA determination says.

However, social media activity showed reviews for services dating back to 2022. There were Facebook posts offering customers Afterpay facilities, and in a call with a Suncorp agent in February the woman said she had been running the business about 18 months.  

“My husband took out the policy ... but didn’t disclose my business, which has customers coming to the home. This was not malicious or misleading ... but a mistake ... Mine is mostly family and friends and a hobby,” she said.

AFCA says the home salon was a business because it allowed appointments, set out the cost for each service, had signage at the property and published operating hours on the website. The woman charged for her services and intended to generate an income.

The policyholder also sought compensation, saying his wife had to take time off work with stress; Suncorp’s claims managers were unprofessional; its scope of works had items missing; its make-safe was inadequate, which led to mould spreading; access to documents was denied; and no call-backs were received from supervisors. 

Suncorp admitted its claims handling and communication could have been better. It refunded premiums from policy inception and paid $500 compensation.

AFCA says that was adequate. “The insurer has acknowledged the complainant’s claims experience and the shortcomings on its part,” the authority said.

See the ruling here.