Suncorp denied a claim after a former customer’s home was destroyed by bushfire, because the premium had not been paid about 10 months previously.

The homeowner took his case to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), arguing that the insurer did not try to contact him or his wife by telephone and the policy was cancelled during a COVID lockdown, when he was not well.

He says he intended to have insurance for the property so it is not fair for the claim, lodged in February this year, to be denied.

But AFCA says Suncorp complied with the Insurance Contracts Act in letting the policy end. The policy was due to expire on April 30 last year, and a renewal notice was sent on March 27, as well as an “unpaid reminder” letter on May 6.

The correspondence was sent by email, with SMS messages also sent asking the complainant to check his emails. Suncorp says in the event of an email delivery failure, notices would be sent by post, but it had no indication the emails had not been successfully delivered so no hard copies were sent.

The complainant says he did not consent to only receiving electronic communication – but Suncorp disagrees and AFCA sided with the insurer.

The certificate of insurance explained correspondence would be sent electronically and the complainant had never queried or attempted to change that arrangement.

AFCA also says that the complainant should have been aware that he was uninsured for at least nine months, during which time no premiums were taken.

“The complainant has provided information about a number of significant personal, health and family difficulties which had been on-going for some time; many of which were then understandably exacerbated by the tragic loss of their home from the bushfire,” AFCA said.

“The panel acknowledges this will have been an extremely difficult and upsetting period for the complainant and his family; and that their focus, in the period leading up to the bushfire, may have been on other compelling personal matters, rather than the issue of insurance.”

But it says it was “ultimately his responsibility” to ensure he had the cover he required.

“The evidence does not show the insurer did anything wrong in the notices it issued, or the actions it took in allowing the policy to come to its expected end, given the failure of the complainant to confirm and pay for renewal when it was due.

“On that basis, the panel is satisfied the insurer has correctly declined this claim and is not required to take any further action.”

Click here to read the full ruling.