A Brisbane-based homeowner has won a dispute against her insurer to have her asbestos corrugated roof replaced after it was damaged by a hailstorm.

The complainant lodged a claim following a severe storm on October 31 2020, when hailstones between 6cm and 8cm hit the roof and punctured its material.

An insured-appointed construction and storm restoration specialist, referred to as AH, said it observed “multiple hail dents” across most of the roof as well as damage to the roof of a nearby patio. AH recommended the roof be replaced with a colour-bond metal equivalent.  

Youi acknowledged that the storm had damaged the property but said that the hail “merely removed” a layer of decayed material from the roof’s surface and did not cause the severity of loss claimed by the insured.

It said other damage existed before the event, and was attributed to wear and tear, which is excluded from coverage in the homeowner’s events-based home and contents policy. 

The insurer relied on findings from a consultant engineer, referred to as JH, who reported that the hail had caused “scuff marks” across the roof sheeting but reflected “little difference in the fibres of the roofing material”. 

JH said the hail had not caused any adverse impact to the roof’s structural integrity and that the perceived damage was the breaking away of mould and other decomposing material. 

JH also said the roof had stress cracks along some of the crests of its sheeting and the material was “past its serviceable life”. 

The complainant challenged the insurer’s decision to decline the claim and engaged with an asbestos eliminator who said that markings on the roof were consistent with “an extremely strong force” such as hail.  

The expert also found that asbestos fibres on the roof had loosened, contaminating its gutters, and urged that the entire roof area be safely removed, decontaminated and replaced. These findings were backed by an asbestos assessor who inspected the property in November last year. 

The claimant also referred to a second assessment from AH that said that the storm’s severity had the potential to damage the material and was the likely cause of the fibre release.  

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acknowledged both parties’ findings and said several factors likely led to the roof’s damaged state but found that there had been limited evidence to show that the exclusion was applicable. 

“I accept that photographs supplied by both the complainant and the insurer show that the roof is aged, suffers some degree of wear and tear, cracking and evidence of pre-existing patching,” AFCA said. 

“However, the insurer has failed to provide evidence that such wear and tear is the effective or dominant cause of the damage to the roof.” 

“In particular, the insurer has not shown that wear and tear caused the pitting and scuff marks on the roof and, consequently, the release of hazardous friable asbestos fibres.” 

AFCA said the complainant provided “compelling” evidence from a series of experts that clearly explained the effect of the hail damage on the asbestos material, while Youi’s findings had been “less sophisticated”.

The ruling rejected suggestions for the matter to be resolved by sealing the roof with a protective coating to prevent fibres from loosening, given the health concerns surrounding asbestos.  

AFCA instead required the insurer to engage with independent experts and assessors to draw up a scope of works for the roof’s replacement and either complete the repairs or offer a cash settlement based on an actionable quote, with a further 20% contingency.  

It also mandated that the homeowners be provided temporary accommodation from Youi if required by the repairs. 

Click here for the ruling.