A homeowner whose fire damage claim was denied when his insurer alleged he had stayed at a monastery rather than his house will be covered for his losses following a dispute authority decision.

The man lodged the claim on April 1 last year after fire destroyed his home.

Allianz declined the claim saying the man had misrepresented himself in policy documents as the owner-occupier.

The insurer relied on information provided during a phone interview with the claimant – who was assisted by a translator – in which he said he had been living at a nearby monastery for about two years and no one stayed at the property in the four months before the fire. 

Its assessment also included a summary of a conversation with the man’s neighbour that appeared to support this.

Allianz said its underwriting department considered any property unoccupied for more than 60 consecutive days an “unacceptable risk”. It said it would not have offered the policy if it was aware of the man’s living status. 

The complainant maintained the information he provided on the policy forms was correct and said in a second interview that there were translation errors in his earlier responses. 

He said he had known of the monastery for two years, rather than living there, and that no one other than him and his family had lived at the property in the months before the fire. He acknowledged he had “started to stay three or four days at the monastery” but said he was at his home every weekend. 

The claimant provided a letter from the monastery’s abbot, who said the man regularly visited but “was not a permanent resident”. The abbot said the monastery provided him with temporary accommodation following the fire.

The complainant also provided affidavits from his ex-wife and the neighbour, who contradicted the earlier evidence and confirmed the man had been occupying the house. 

AFCA says there is “insufficient information” to show the man misrepresented his position. It accepts there was probably miscommunication in the interview, given it was over the phone and with a translator. 

“Other than the initial interview with the investigator, there are no direct statements by the complainant which suggest he was not living at the insured property,” AFCA’s panel said. 

“The earliest reference in the claim notes to the complainant not occupying the property is on April 27 2023, being after the investigator’s interview and update to the insurer. The subsequent claims notes are repetitions from the interview, rather than independent corroborations.” 

It says the claimant’s evidence is “reasonably comprehensive in indicating that for governmental, medical and personal purposes, he permanently resided at the property.  

“Moreover, the panel considers the letter from the monastery’s abbot is a credible and authoritative statement that the complainant did not reside at the monastery. Given the insurer posited that location as the complainant’s alternative place of residence, in the absence of another explanation of where he resided or information to the contrary, the panel considers the insured did not reside at the monastery.”

The ruling requires Allianz to reinstate the policy and cover the claim for the fire damage.

Click here for the ruling.