A strata building policyholder that lodged a $49,000 hailstorm claim will be only partially covered after the insurance complaints authority found there was limited damage to the property’s roof – and much of it was probably caused by golf balls. 

The policyholder claimed in January last year for roof damage it said was caused by a storm in March 2022. It said the storm had affected 90% of the roof and it needed it replaced.  

QBE appointed a builder to inspect the roof, and they reported no observable hail damage. 

The builder acknowledged “hail wash” had removed grime from the roof’s sheet but said this did not affect the roof’s condition.  

An insurer-appointed building consultant found indentations that appeared to be from hail but noted the damage seemed to have occurred before the 2022 storm and had no impact on the roof’s lifespan.   

An engineer found impact damage caused either by hail or golf balls hit from a course near the property. 

They said the damage was mostly at the golf course end of the building and two balls had been found in the gutter. 

The engineer said the “clustering of impact damage to the golf course end of the roof leads to the reasonable conclusion this damage has been caused by golf ball impact”.  

They noted the damage was not widespread, as the complainant had said, and mechanical damage and poor workmanship had also affected the roof.  

QBE said the roof damage was not substantial enough to warrant replacement, noting most was caused by wear and tear and other excluded sources.  

The insurer offered to cash settle based on a builder’s quote of $6638, with a 10% contingency uplift.  

The complainant argued the roof’s structure was compromised and the insurer should be required to replace it under Queensland Building and Construction Commission guidelines. The quoted cost for a roof replacement was $48,973.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s ruling says QBE provided consistent evidence to show the impact damage was “comparatively light and not widespread across the entire roof surface”.  

It says the insurer’s settlement is fair but it should increase its contingency to 20%, given the time that has passed since the quote was issued.   

“It has not been established that the roof must be replaced due to accidental damage, and the insurer has shown some of the damage is from excluded causes,” the authority said. “It would therefore be unfair to require the insurer to cover more of the roof damage than it previously accepted.”  

Click here for the ruling.