A homeowner who claimed for fire damage has lost an insurance dispute after a panel found he breached his policy terms by using the property as a boarding house.

QBE had declined the claim after it discovered the man provided accommodation for four people and listed the home online as a “shared house”. The insurer said its home and contents policy stipulated that a boarding house would not be considered a “home”.

The claimant said that, ordinarily, only he and his wife lived at the property, and the student occupants were there temporarily.

But he later acknowledged to an insurer-appointed private investigator that the occupants were paying in cash for their stay.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority panel has ruled the property is the claimant’s primary residence but that it was operating as a boarding home.

The complainant said the fire could not be shown to have been caused by the boarders.

But the authority’s panel says this is irrelevant to the insurer’s argument – that the property did not meet the definitions of the policy. 

“The panel is satisfied the property is a boarding house and not a home,” AFCA said. “It would be unfair to require the insurer to cover the claim.” 

It was also alleged that QBE failed to secure the property while investigating the claim and was responsible for a theft in which more than $7000 of coins and timber was taken.

The claimant says the insurer’s investigator told him not to interfere with the building’s security and asked him to leave the doors unlocked.

The investigator provided an email showing that he informed the complainant to remove any valuables from the site during the inspection. The investigator also denied advising the owner not to interfere with the home’s security and said he required keys to access the property.

The complaints authority has ruled QBE is not liable for the theft, saying the complainant did not provide “compelling evidence to suggest he was advised not to interfere with the security of his property or contents”. 

The authority does not require the insurer to pay for non-financial losses relating to the claim’s handling.

“While the panel empathises with the complainant and acknowledges that the events leading up to the claim have been stressful, the panel is not satisfied that the insurers’ conduct of the claim has caused an unusual degree of inconvenience and time taken to resolve the claim.” 

See the ruling here.