A homeowner whose water damage claim was denied due to a flood exclusion has won her dispute after the Australian Financial Complainants Authority (AFCA) found her insurer failed to prove the inundation was caused by floodwater. 

The complainant lodged the claim on March 2 last year after water entered her property across the previous week, causing damage to the home and its contents, as well as a shed. Reports showed that the home’s flooring, fittings, walls, and furniture had all been impacted by water that reached above 80mm of inundation.

The insured maintains that the water was stormwater run-off. She says it first began entering the property at around 9am on February 28 and provided the AFCA panel with photographic evidence that showed clear water surrounding the house. 

The woman also referred to rainfall data from a nearby weather station that recorded “a number of periods of intense rainfall” between 12am and 9:40am on February 28.

Allianz declined the claim after findings from its appointed hydrologist, referred to as W, attributed the inundation to floodwater from the Richmond River, which is about 550m away from the property. 

The claimant challenged W’s findings, noting that recordings from the river’s gauge station reported its peak water level of 22.89m above average sea levels at 7:30pm on February 28, which had only been slightly above the property’s recorded ground level of 22.63m.

Recorded water levels from the gauge noted that the water levels elevated from 19.92m to the peak levels from 6am to 7:30pm.

AFCA acknowledged that W’s report contained different measurements for the property that placed it at 21.08m above sea level. It says these measurements had been approximate that it preferred the complainant’s recorded level, which had been taken from specific site records from the local council.

The panel agreed that the home had been affected by floodwaters at some point but says W’s report had been “silent” on whether the waters that first inundated the house had been from the Richmond River.

“W does not discuss when the river likely broke its bank or when and how this water would have inundated the property,” AFCA said.

“W also fails to comment on the complainant’s evidence and photos which show the property was surrounded by relatively clear water in the morning of February 28 2022, at around 10-and-a-half hours before the river levels peaked.” 

AFCA says it is “difficult to infer”, based on the available recordings, that the floodwater, which only peaked slightly above the property’s ground level, caused the initial inundation. 

“There is no dispute storms caused the damage being claimed,” AFCA said.

“The insurer relied on the flood exclusion. However, as it has not established the damage being claimed was caused by flood or any other excluded cause, it cannot deny the claim.”

Click here for the ruling.