A claimant who argued his fish should be covered as a special valuable under his home and contents policy has lost a dispute before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

The man lost several items including two fish tanks while moving home, with the losses occurring across a series of incidents over 25 days. 

Insurer IAG declined to cover the fish and some other lost contents, and said damage to other items was caused by separate events that would require individual claims. 

When buying his policy last May, the man entered “fish breeding stock” in a free-format box under the special valuable section. 

He said the insurer’s acceptance of this declaration gave him the impression the policy would cover his fish.

IAG did not dispute that the man was able to list “fish breeding stock” in the free-format box, but it said this did not mean the policy would cover them. It said the box was used to let consumers describe types of valuable the policy did cover.  

It said the claimant should have been aware the policy did not cover fish because its product disclosure statement featured clear exclusions for “animals, including birds and fish”.  

AFCA accepts the insurer’s explanation, writing in its ruling: “There are no words in either the question or the additional information which indicate cover for valuables extends past the items/categories listed or that it includes fish/animals.

“While the text box allowed the words ‘fish breeding stock’ to be entered, the wording which preceded it clearly outlined fish were not considered a valuable.

“Further, if the complainant remained unsure after this, he could have reviewed the PDS or contacted the insurer for clarification.”  

The authority also accepts the insurer is not required to cover the other items under one claim, despite the claimant’s argument that the damage occurred during one protracted “life event”.  

AFCA says the losses were caused by separate incidents on different moving trips and there is “no causal link to show all damage occurred because of the initial action/event (the first trip).

“Based on the complainant’s submission, it is clear he is describing separate incidents. If the complainant wishes to seek cover for the remaining items, he can lodge a further claim or claims with the insurer.

“The insurer is then required to assess the claim(s) in accordance with the terms of the policy.” 

Click here for the ruling.