A homeowner whose property was damaged following an “overwhelming” storm will be compensated after winning a dispute to overturn his insurer’s application of a wear and tear exclusion. 

The complainant lodged a claim on March 23 last year after rainwater from the storm entered his home causing damage to his basement and several rooms. 

Hollard appointed a builder to inspect the damaged areas, who reported that water had entered rooms both downstairs and upstairs due to an opening from deteriorated silicon on the box gutter’s pressure seal. 

The builder notes that damage to the front bedroom sliding doors had been due to issues with the planter boxes and had been occurring “for some time”.

The insurer also engaged with a roof plumber who agreed that the deteriorated silicon on the box gutters as well as on the parapet capping, had been entrance points for the water.

Hollard says its home and contents policy did not cover losses for storm events where water had entered the home through openings not created by the storm. It also says exclusions relating to wear and tear and lack of maintenance applied in relation to damage caused by gaps from the deteriorated silicon and the failed membrane in the planter box. 

The claimant appointed a consultant engineer, referred to as TBA, who observed further damage in the home’s front entry, formal lounge room, lower rumpus and garage.

TBA says the overwhelming “volume and velocity of rain” during the storm had penetrated through the sides of the box gutters to flood the home. Records from the Bureau of Meteorology showed that 126mm of rain had fallen on the day of the event. 

The engineer disagrees with the assessments from the insurer-appointed experts, saying that the “sheer volume of moisture infiltration” observed in the home would not have been possible through the openings in the deteriorated silicon. TBA also notes that water from the driveway had flowed into the garage and lower levels of the home.

The engineer acknowledges that some water likely did enter the home through the openings from the noted defects but says the extent of damage shown across the property could not have stemmed from them. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) supported TBA’s findings which attributed the damage to the overwhelming force of the storm.

“While I acknowledged there is some wear and tear evident to the home, based on the available information, the insurer is not entitled to deny the claim as a valid claim for storm damage has been established,” AFCA said.

The ruling required Hollard to arrange a scope of works for damage highlighted in TBA’s report and cover the costs associated with an actionable quote. The decision also mandates that the insurer pay an additional 20% contingency fee if it elects to cash settle the claim.

Click here for the ruling.