A Suncorp contents insurance policyholder who believed a bat was responsible for a power surge that subsequently damaged his laptop and televisions has failed in his bid to have the insurer accept his claim.

The man had taken his case to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), relying on a provision in the policy that states that damage caused by an animal is an insured event.

He submitted to AFCA photographs of a bat that was apparently stuck on the power lines outside his house to back his case. And he also claimed Suncorp’s electrical technician agreed a bat had sparked the power disturbance.

But AFCA was not persuaded, ruling the complainant failed to provide “sufficient” evidence to demonstrate an animal caused the damage.

“The insured event for ‘damage by an animal’ requires there to be information to show a causal connection between the claimed damage to the contents and an animal,” AFCA says in its determination of the dispute.

“In this instance, there is no dispute there is damage to the complainant’s contents. However, I am not satisfied a photograph of an animal on the power lines outside the home automatically means, on balance, that animal caused the power surge and subsequent damage.”

Suncorp had denied the claim, which was lodged in July last year. The insurer says the complainant has not established an insured event caused the damage and that the policy contains a general exclusion for damage caused by a power surge.

AFCA notes there is no further information to substantiate the complainant’s suggested cause of damage. While the complainant did claim the electrical technician agreed an animal was responsible, the technician made no mention of it in his report to Suncorp.

The report did confirm that an electricity surge had damaged the main power circuit board, two televisions, and a laptop. The report says the incident may have occurred from a power outage and suggested the complainant’s energy provider may provide a letter to determine if this was indeed what had happened.

The technician also checked with the Bureau of Meteorology for lightning activity since the policy provides cover for damage caused by lightning, including a power surge triggered by lightning. It was confirmed there was no storm or lightning activity in the area around the complainant’s reported date of loss.

The policy comes with exclusions, including an exemption for loss or damage that is caused by, arises from or involves a power surge. It also does not cover for loss or damage caused by power failures or surges by the power provider, or if there is no record of lightning.

“Given the report from [the electrical technician] confirms the cause of the damage was a power surge, and there is no information to show another insured event caused the damage, I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to decline the claim,” AFCA said.

Click here for the ruling.