A Queensland homeowner whose property was damaged during last year’s record flood event will not be covered for her losses after a dispute ruling sided with her insurer’s decision to decline the claim.  

The complainant lodged a claim on March 1 last year, a day after her home had been inundated during a significant storm. She says stormwater and rainwater runoff had come through a drain in the bathroom of a granny flat attached to the home, causing damage to the property. 

But Allianz declined the claim, saying that the damage to the property had stemmed from floodwaters, which was excluded from cover under the home insurance policy. 

The insurer relied on a report from a hydrologist, referred to as WMA, who assessed the claimed damage in April and concluded that floodwaters were responsible for the loss. 

The report observed that water had come up through the drain and the property’s driveway by 5am before entering the home some time around 6am, with the water reaching 3.78m Australian Height Datum (AHD), which exceeded both the granny flat and the home’s floor levels of 3.6mAHD and 3.66mAHD, respectively. 

WMA says backflows in high tide and peak water levels at a nearby creek of 4.28mAHD, which had exceeded the stormwater pits level of 2.9mAHD, caused the pipe stormwater network to be vulnerable to floodwaters.  

The hydrologist says intense rainfall from the storm may have initially accumulated on the street of the home but had been unable to be drained because of the pipe’s inability to deal with the floodwaters. 

The claimant said the findings from WMA’s report had been inconsistent with the insurer’s assessment of a neighbouring property, which accepted a claim for storm damage.  

However, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) says the circumstances of the two claims had differed due the properties' location on the street and the timing of peak inundation.  

“The initial inundation at the [neighbour's] property was at approximately 2.30am on February 28 2022, coincides with the heaviest rainfalls on that day. This is significantly earlier than the inundation of the complainant’s property,” AFCA said. 

“The neighbour’s property was at the low point on the western side of L Street in the location where stormwater runoff from the substantial local stormwater catchment would potentially overflow as it travelled towards T Creek.” 

AFCA says the conclusions from hydrologists who inspected each property had been consistent with their views on the causes of the damage.  

The ruling also rejected the claimant’s objections to the insurer’s decision to consider stormwater mixed with floodwater as floodwater. 

“Courts have found that once rainwater mixes with floodwater it is all considered floodwater,” AFCA said. 

“Where rainwater mixes with floodwater and causes damage, a flood exclusion will usually apply to defeat the claim.

“I empathise with the complainant’s circumstances and recognise the devastating impact of the flood on the complainant and the community.

“However, the available evidence establishes that most likely the initial and peak levels of inundation of the complainant’s property was caused by floodwaters from T Creek.” 

Click here for the ruling.