Complainants who purchased a policy days before their caravan and annexe flooded will be covered for their losses after winning a claims dispute. 

The claimants insured their 1980 Viscount caravan and annexe, which had been situated at a commercial water ski area on March 1 last year. The policy covered the caravan for an agreed value of $20,000, and the annexe for $130,000.

The policyholder lodged a claim on March 8 after reporting that floodwaters had damaged the caravan, annexe and its contents.

Suncorp initially accepted the claim as a total loss but reversed its decision following inspections that it said showed the damage occurred within 72 hours of the policy’s commencement, during which there was no flood cover. 

An insurer-appointed hydrologist, referred to as D, reported that the property first suffered ground inundation due to flooding from the Hawkesbury River on March 3 and 4. A second, more severe flood occurred on March 6, reaching its peak a few days later at 5.3m AHD.

D said the date of the initial flooding of the complainant’s site was unknown but estimated, based on the modelling, that it would have been on March 3 at around 5:15pm. 

The hydrologist noted that flooding on the date peaked at 3.68m and highlighted that backwater from local creeks behind the park also entered the property.

The claimants challenged D’s finding and provided the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) with photographs of the caravan following the March 3 event, which they said showed no damage. 

They also supplied declarations from two witnesses, one of which said that water had yet to reach the property by 1pm on March 6. The second witness said they checked the claimants’ caravan on March 4 and told them that the floodwaters had not damaged it. 

AFCA acknowledged the witnesses’ evidence as “compelling”, saying it was “direct, observational evidence that is supported by two statutory declarations”.

It said that the witness testimonies combined with the photographs of the undamaged caravan provided satisfactory evidence to show the claim was valid.

“D’s opinion is based on modelling that has not been tested with any eyewitness evidence of the site. Instead, it is in direct conflict with these eyewitnesses and the complainants’ photographs,” AFCA said.

“I am not persuaded there is sufficient basis to prefer D’s modelling over the eyewitness evidence.”

The ruling required the insurer to accept the claim and compensate the complainants under the terms of the policy.

Click here for the ruling.