A joint homeowner will be entitled to payment for damage to her property after she successfully challenged her insurer’s decision to pay a claim settlement solely to her ex-husband.   

The Queensland property had been purchased and insured under the complainant and her ex-husband’s name before she vacated it in 2020 following a domestic violence incident and order issued by the police.  

The family court set up a property order that agreed that the ex-husband, referred to as Mr S, was the sole occupant of the property and would be responsible for its upkeep, including its insurance premiums.  

Following a storm in early 2022, the property sustained damage to its contents and farming equipment, as well as internal damage to the residential building.  

The woman said she was made aware QBE was assessing the claim during unrelated legal proceedings. In June 2022, she informed the insurer that she was separating from Mr S and requested it include her in all correspondence and settlements relating to the property.  

The insurer agreed to cash-settle the claim early last year, offering $39,000 for temporary accommodation costs, $30,000 for fencing damage, and an additional $82,692 for contents losses, all paid to the ex-husband. The property was later sold in June.  

The complainant argues that she was entitled to 50% of the settlement as the property was in her name. She also argues that QBE mishandled the claim.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority agreed that the complainant had a financial interest in the property and suffered a loss relating to the damage, despite not living there.   

“I consider the property order did not absolve the complainant of her financial interest in the property, rather it allowed Mr S sole occupancy of the property and responsibility of utilities and finances pertaining to the property,” the authority said.  

“The property was still owned and mortgaged under joint names by the complainant and Mr S and so both parties would have an interest in any repairs to the property.” 

However, the decision said the complainant was not entitled to the settlements relating to the temporary accommodation and contents losses, as she had not established that she suffered a loss in those areas.   

“Considering the complainant was not residing at the property at the time of loss I am not satisfied she has incurred a loss for the temporary accommodation as she was not displaced from her home due to the event,” the authority said.

“Similarly, while the complainant claims to have contents left behind at the property, she is unable to establish a loss for these items. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive any settlements for the contents and temporary accommodation.”  

The ruling acknowledged that it did not have jurisdiction to determine how the payment should be divided up but accepted that the insurer should pay any unsettled portion of the property damage settlement into a trust.  

It also required QBE to pay the woman $4000 in non-financial loss compensation for its poor claims handling.  

“While I acknowledge the insurer was not aware of the complainant’s domestic situation when the claim was lodged, I do accept it was aware of this when it made the settlements to Mr S,” the authority said.

“The payments were issued to a sole person despite the policies being in joint names and without obtaining consent from the co-insured, the complainant.”

“I consider this conduct has not been in good faith and a cause of further inconvenience to a complainant who is already vulnerable.”

Click here for the ruling.